daemonology and divine right

The Department of History at The University of Texas

The Department of History at The University of Texas

DAEMONOLOGIE AND DIVINE RIGHT:

THE POLITICS OF WITCHCRAFT

IN LATE SIXTEENTH-CENTURY SCOTLAND

__________________________

A History Honours Thesis

Presented to

The Department of History

at The University of Texas

__________________________

In Fulfilment of the Requirements

for History Honours

Under the Supervision of

Dr. Brian P. Levack

John E. Green Regents Professor in History

_________________________________

by

Allegra Geller

May 2013

2

ABSTRACT

This thesis examines the connection between the personal and political ideologies of

King James VI of Scotland, his personal involvement in the two mass witch panics which took

place during 1590-1 and 1597, and the writing of his treatise, Daemonologie, all of which

occurred at a time of religious, social and political turmoil during the late sixteenth century.

King James believed in the theory of divine right, and that he was accountable only to

God. This belief led to conflict between James and his Kirk, with the Presbyterian ministers

overtly questioning his ability to rule effectively. The witch-hunts which occurred in 1590-1

reflect James’ reaction to this conflict, and illustrate his ability to manipulate the existing events

in order to further his own aims; namely to reinforce his divine right to rule, as well as assert the

legitimacy of his throne.

James’ treatise, Daemonologie, which is unique in that it is the only work of its kind

written by an early modern European monarch, reflects both his involvement in the witch trials,

as well as his personal views regarding kingship. Ultimately, James’ involvement in the trials

and the writing of Daemonologie served to affirm his authority by underlining his belief in his

God-given right to rule, and legitimized his unstable regime by reinforcing his authority over

both the Kirk and his government.

During the course of this research, numerous sixteenth-century documents, including

personal correspondence, trial records and contemporary accounts were examined in order to

determine the many intricacies connecting James, the witch trials, and Daemonologie, as well as

the complex nature of their relationship. This thesis is organized chronologically, with

individual sections highlighting the events which gave rise to the witch panics, the political

climate at the time, the trials, and Daemonologie itself.

3

Dedicated to the memory of His Majesty

King James VI of Scotland and I of England, whose Machiavellian machinations inspired my research.

‘The state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth; for kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne,

but even by God himself they are called Gods.’ - King James VI & I

4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to thank, first and foremost, my advisor and mentor, Dr Brian P. Levack, for his on-

going support throughout my undergraduate studies. His wealth of knowledge, advice, and

encouragement has been essential to the completion of this thesis. It has been an honour and

a privilege to learn from him.

I am deeply indebted to Dr Owain Wright for the countless hours he has spent reading my

work and offering suggestions. I would also like to thank my family and friends for their

incredible tolerance.

5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION 6

II. DIVINE RIGHT THEORY OF KINGSHIP AND ROYAL ABSOLUTISM 10

III. THE EARL OF BOTHWELL AND THE POLITICAL CLIMATE OF THE LATE

SIXTEENTH CENTURY 15

IV. THE KINGげ“ AUTHO‘ITY ATTACKED 20

V. THE NORTH BERWICK WITCH TRIALS 28

VI. DAEMONOLOGIE 47

VII. CONCLUSION 61

6

I. INTRODUCTION

‘Scotland played an unenviable part in the great witch panic which swept like an epidemic over Europe during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It suited with the stern, uncompromising Puritan temper to tear this accursed thing from the heart of the nation, and offer it, bleeding and palpitating, as a sacrifice to the Lord; accordingly we find the witch-trials of Scotland conducted with more severity than elsewhere, and with a more gloomy and savage fanaticism of faith.’1

Witchcraft persecutions were infrequent in Scotland until the late sixteenth century. It

was at this time that King James VI took a personal interest in witchcraft and demonology and

became actively involved in witchcraft trials during 1590-1, and again in 1597. 1590 saw the

dramatic rise of witch-hunts, with witches being accused of plotting to murder the king. The

trials of 1590-1, which became known as the North Berwick witch trials, resulted in

approximately seventy accused witches being put to death. The second mass witch-hunt, which

took place a mere six years later, saw upward of two hundred executions.

James’s existing fear of witchcraft escalated rapidly after he sailed to Norway in 1590 to

meet his bride, Anne of Denmark, whose ship had been attacked by severe storms while

attempting to reach Scotland. James’s ship was also subjected to storms, both while sailing to

Norway, and then again, when he and Anne set sail for Scotland six months later.2 After the

king returned to Scotland, the witch panics arose with the confession of witchcraft by a

maidservant in North Berwick named Geillis Duncan.3 Under interrogation, Duncan accused

others of witchcraft, including a woman named Agnes Sampson who in turn confessed that

1 E. Lynn Linton, "The Witches of Scotland," in Witch Stories (London: Chatto and Windus, 1883), 16.

2 P.G. Maxwell-Stuart, "The Fear of the King is Death: James VI and the Witches of East Lothian," in New

Perspectives on Witchcraft, Magic and Demonology: Witchcraft in the British Isles and New England, ed.

Brian Levack (New York, NY: Routledge, 2001), 367. 3 Louise Yeoman, "Hunting the Rich Witch in Scotland: High-Status Witchcraft Suspects and their Persecutors,

1590-1650," in The Scottish Witch-Hunt in Context, ed. Julian Goodare (Manchester, UK: Manchester

University Press, 2002), 107.

7

witches were conspiring against the king. Further confessions, including those of attempting to

murder James and his bride while they sailed home from Denmark, and of making pacts with the

Devil were extracted, ‘using torture as part of the criminal process.’4 Convinced that witches in

North Berwick were holding secret meetings and conspiring with the Devil ‘for the purpose of

harming God’s people’ James became intimately involved in the trials, to the extent of

personally examining accused witches.5

King James VI of Scotland and Anne of Denmark.

Due to James’ personal involvement in the North Berwick trials, and the assertion of his

legitimacy and God-given divine right to rule, the concept of ‘politically motivated sorcery’

resulted in witchcraft being legally defined as treason.6 James politicized witchcraft by

perpetuating the view that the Devil was determined to destroy the established order of Scotland.

4 Stuart Macdonald, "The Devil in Fife Witchcraft Cases," in The Scottish Witch-Hunt in Context, 35.

5 Lauren Martin, "Witchcraft, Quarrels and Women's Work," in The Scottish Witch-Hunt in Context, 78.

6 Brian P. Levack, Witch-Hunting in Scotland: Law, Politics and Religion (New York, NY: Routledge, 2008), 41.

8

This politicization enabled the king to neutralize the political power of the volatile fifth Earl of

Bothwell, whom James both feared and perceived as a threat to his royal authority, by having the

Earl charged with witchcraft. Politicization also gave rise to the use of torture to extract

confessions during interrogations. In October 1591, James’ Privy Council established six

commissioners to enquire into witchcraft cases, advocating the use of torture to force

confessions, which caused a dramatic escalation in the number of accusations and resulted in

full-blown witch panics.7

The witch-hunts took place against a background of social, religious and political turmoil,

in which James’ reign was anything but secure. The Presbyterian-controlled Church of Scotland

was embroiled in an on-going conflict with the king over his adamant belief in divine right and

his claim that the Kirk had no authority over him, as he had been chosen by God to rule.8 The

Presbyterian ministers persistently questioned the king’s authority and ability to rule his realm

effectively. The North Berwick witch-hunts of 1590-1 reflect James’ reaction to the conflict and

the attacks on his authority. They illustrate the king’s brilliant manipulation of the events in

order to further his own aims, namely to reinforce his divine right to rule, and the legitimacy of

his throne.

During the final years of the sixteenth century, famine, repeated harvest failures, and an

outbreak of plague increased social tensions within the kingdom, causing further instability. The

king, his council and the Kirk collectively wanted to re-establish unity and harmony within the

realm, and witch-hunting became an effective means to achieve their common goal.9 The witch-

hunts that occurred during 1597 reflect this shared desire for stability and unity. As this later

7 Lawrence Normand and Gareth Roberts, Witchcraft in Early Modern Scotland: James VI's Demonology and

the North Berwick Witches (Exeter, UK: University of Exeter Press, 2000), 88. 8 In 1560, the Scottish Reformation formally severed any ties between Scotland and the Roman Catholic

Church. 9 Julian Goodare, "The Scottish Witchcraft Panic of 1597,ざ iﾐ The Scottish Witch-Hunt in Context, 53.

9

panic developed, the Scottish people, from the lower levels of society to the upper echelons

became largely disillusioned and criticized the king for the excesses of the trials. Despite being

opposed by some members of his Privy Council, James exerted his authority to ensure the

perpetuation of the 1597 prosecutions. In this way, he facilitated another ‘major panic over

treasonable witchcraft thought to be directed at the king personally.’10

Towards the end of the 1597 panic, James published a treatise, Daemonologie, in which

he expressed his views on necromancy, sorcery and witchcraft, and his belief in a widespread

conspiracy of witches in league with the Devil. The belief in a large-scale collusion of witches,

and his involvement in the witch panics validated the king’s belief in his divine authority to rule

and reinforced the legitimacy of his reign. Although the writing of Daemonologie was

undoubtedly influenced by his involvement in the 1590-1 North Berwick witch trials and was

written as a response to the witch panics, the treatise was not published until 1597, largely as a

result of the negative public sentiment regarding the 1597 trials.

James’ inherent belief in divine right, as well as his driving need to assert both his

legitimacy and royal authority, significantly affected not only late sixteenth-century witchcraft

policy and procedure in Scotland, but also gave rise to the creation of Daemonologie, which is

unique in that it remains the only work of its kind written by an early modern European monarch.

The complex connection between James’ overtly questioned authority, his unorthodox

involvement in the witch trials and his personal beliefs regarding kingship are thus reflected in

both the witch trial records and the text of Daemonologie. Ultimately, James’ involvement in the

trials and the writing of his demonological treatise served to affirm his authority by underlining

his belief in his God-given right to rule, and legitimized his unstable regime by reinforcing his

authority over both the Kirk and his government. 10

Ibid, 62.

10

II. DIVINE RIGHT THEORY OF KINGSHIP AND ROYAL ABSOLUTISM ‘The State of MONARCHIE is the supremest thing vpon earth: For Kings are not onely GODS Lieutenants vpon earth, and sit vpon GODS throne, but euen by GOD himselfe they are called Gods… Kings are iustly called Gods, for that they exercise a manner or resemblance of Diuine power vpon earth…they make and vnmake their subiects: they haue power of raising, and casting downe: of life, and of death: Iudges ouer all their subiects, and in all causes, and yet accomptable to none but God onely.’11 ‘…it is the distinguishing mark of the sovereign that he cannot in any way be subject to the commands of another, for it is he who makes law for the subject…’12

The Divine Right of Kings is a version of absolutist theory which claims that anointed

monarchs, having been placed upon their thrones through the will of God, are subject to His

authority alone, and not to that of any on earth. Both divine right theory and royal absolutism

played a significant part in the North Berwick witch panic, and together with James’ personal

involvement in the trials, contributed to both the politicization of witchcraft and to the writing of

Daemonologie. The scriptural basis for the doctrine of divine right can be found in the Books of

Proverbs and Romans:

‘By me kings reigne, and princes decree iustice. By me Princes rule, and Nobles, euen all the Iudges of the earth.’13 ‘Let every soule submit him selfe vnto the autorite of ye hyer powers. For there is no power but of God. The powers that be are ordeyned of God. Whosoever therfore resysteth power resisteth the ordinaunce of God. And they that resist shall receave to the selfe damnacion.’14

In accordance with the divine right theory of kingship, James believed that he was given

the right to rule by the will of God, and not by the people. Ergo, his subjects, including the

11

King James VI & I, "A Speech to the Lords and Commons of the Parliament at White-Hall, on Wednesday the

21 of March. Anno 1609," in The Political Works of James I, ed. Charles Howard McIlwain (Cambridge:

Harvard University Press, 1918), 307-308. 12

Jean Bodin, Les Six Livres de la République (Aalen, Germany: Scientia Verlag, 1961), 134. 13

Proverbs 8: 15-16, King James Bible (1611). 14

Romans 13:1-2, William Tyndale translation (1536).

11

government and Kirk, owed ‘next to God, a natural and humble obedience’ to him as their king,

and that he was ‘institute and furnished by the goodness and sufferance of Almighty God with

plenary, whole and entire power.’15 Intellectual support for James’s philosophy can be found in

numerous histories, chronicles, and law tracts. Fourteenth-century French jurists also asserted

that ‘the king was emperor in his realm (rex in regno sue est imperator)’ and as such, was

answerable only to God.16

Royal absolutism is a political theory that places kings above the law, and holds that

kings have the right to enact laws without the approval of their representative assemblies. In

defence of royal absolutism, the sixteenth-century French political philosopher Jean Bodin

argued that coronation oaths did not necessarily equal an obligation to maintain the existing law.

In his 1576 treatise on government, Les Six Livres de la République, Bodin states, ‘I say, that,

notwithstanding all these oaths, a sovereign prince can change the laws, or annul them and quash

them, once they have ceased to be just.’17 By this rationale, James would have the authority to

declare what laws were in fact just or unjust, including laws pertaining to treason and by

extension, witchcraft. This is further reflected in République, with Bodin’s claim that the ‘Law

depends on him who holds the sovereignty, since he has the ability to obligate all his subjects but

no capacity to obligate himself.’18

The politics of the witch panics of the late sixteenth century and James’s beliefs are

inextricably connected, in that ‘as political ideology goes the Scottish witch-hunt coincided

exactly with the period spanned by the doctrines of the divine right of kings and the godly

15

William L. Sachse, English History in the Making, Vol 1. (Lexington: Blaisedell Publishing Co, 1967), 187. 16

John Cramsie, "The Philosophy of Imperial Kingship and the Interpretation of James VI and I," in James VI

and I: Ideas, Authority and Government, ed. Ralph Houlbrooke (Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 2006),

43. 17

Bodin, République, 134. 18

Ibid.

12

state.’19 Essentially, an attack on James, as an anointed king, was synonymous with an attack on

God. James argued that none but God had the power to make and unmake kings, and by 1588

had ‘defined his kingship as a unity temporal and spiritual imperium within an Old Testament

tradition of theocratic power.’20 The witch-hunts reflected his inherent belief in his God-given

right to rule, and perfectly ‘vindicated his virtue, his relationship to God, and his concern for his

people.’21 While divine right ideology legitimized James’ unstable regime by reinforcing his

kingly authority, the ‘moral cleansing’ of the witch hunts ‘demonstrated its effectiveness.’22

James’s adherence to divine right theory is also reflected in News from Scotland, a

pamphlet which gives an account of the North Berwick witch trials of 1590-1, and focuses on a

supposed demonic conspiracy against the king. News has the distinction of being the first work

printed in Scotland or England which is singularly about Scottish witchcraft.23 Printed near the

end of 1591, News is an anonymous narrative that draws upon the North Berwick pre-trial

examination records, and claims to be ‘a true discourse’ of the examinations ‘as they were taken

and uttered in the presence of the king’s Majesty.’24 The pamphlet is the primary source for the

details of the torture used to force confessions, the gruesome specifics of which are elucidated

extensively within the text. The most sensational aspect of the work is the account of the Devil

and his alleged preaching from the pulpit in the North Berwick Kirk on All Hallows’ Eve, to the

witches gathered there for a meeting, or ‘convention.’

News from Scotland was written and published during the North Berwick witch trials to

‘serve urgent political ends’ and was instrumental in highlighting the political relevance of the

19

Christina Larner, Enemies of God: The Witch-Hunt in Scotland (London, UK: Chatto & Windus, 1981), 198. 20

Ibid, 46-48. 21

Ibid, 198. 22

Ibid, 58. 23

Normand and Roberts, Witchcraft in Early Modern Scotland, 290. 24

News from Scotland, in Witchcraft in Early Modern Scotland, 310.

13

trials.25 The pamphlet, which claims that James was the Devil’s greatest enemy, emphasizes the

king’s divine association with God. Ultimately, News aimed to ‘establish the truth of the witches’

conspiracy, the Devil’s personal involvement, and the king’s response to treason, and to assert a

notion of kingship that flows from these.’26 The pamphlet also ‘uses as much of the stories of

real people as it needs to achieve its aim of demonstrating the real and on-going threat presented

by witches to royal power, a threat that is spiritual, theological and political.’27

News from Scotland woodcut, depicting the storm during the crossing from Denmark and the Devil preaching at the North Berwick kirk.

As a work of ‘colourful, sensational and violent’ propaganda, News from Scotland

efficaciously illustrates James’s God-given power, which through his personal involvement in

25


Ibid, 299-300. 27

Ibid.

14

the witch trials, is proven to be greater than that of the witches and their diabolic master.28

Politically, the pamphlet supports James’ divine right to rule, by ostentatiously hailing him as the

Devil’s greatest adversary on earth.29 Thus, politics are symbolized by the king, while all

opposition to his kingship and legitimacy are symbolized by the Devil. This is reflected in the

sensationalist recounting of the North Berwick witch trials, which states that ‘the witches

demanded of the Devil why he did bear such hatred to the king, who answered, by reason the

king is the greatest enemy he hath in the world.’30 Of further political significance is the absence

of any mention within the pamphlet of the Earl of Bothwell, who at the time News was written,

had already been accused of conspiring with witches against the king. This glaring omission

serves to affirm the pamphlets political tactics which avoid mentioning the turmoil caused by

Bothwell, and focus, instead on the Devil.

Ultimately, News was published to demonstrate the threat posed by witches to James’

royal authority, while extolling the king’s ability to face and defeat the powers of evil. The

king’s legitimacy as well as the ideology of divine right is also firmly established in News, which

claims that while the reader may not believe that King James would put himself in the presence

of dangerous witches, as God’s anointed, he was divinely protected.31 News from Scotland

concludes with a dramatic statement which highlights James as being chosen by God’s divine

will, claiming that ‘it is well known that the King is the child and servant of God, and they (the

witches) but servants to the devil; he is the lord’s anointed, and they but vessels of God’s wrath;

he is a true Christian and trusteth in God.’32

28

Ibid, 290. 29

Ibid, 306. 30

News from Scotland, 323. 31

Ibid. 32

Ibid.

15

III. THE EARL OF BOTHWELL AND POLITICAL CLIMATE OF THE LATE SIXTEENTH

CENTURY ‘The first day of the Parliament the king had an harangue, wherein he layed to Bothwell’s charge that he sought his destruction, first by witchecraft, both when he was in Denmarke, and when he was at home, as the depositiouns of the witches would testifie, that he might succeed to the crowne…’33

Numerous Acts of Parliament were to have a significant effect on the witch panics which

occurred at the end of the sixteenth century. The 1563 Witchcraft Act became law ‘following the

initial successes of the Reformation movement’ due to a ‘power vacuum in the area of social

control previously covered by ecclesiastical courts.’34 Ensuring that witchcraft was formally

incorporated into criminal law, the statute passed in 1563 ‘set in motion a complex legal

machine.’35 After 1563, ‘the General Assembly treated witchcraft as one of the contentious

issues between them and secular authorities.’36 This was greatly significant during the last

decade of the sixteenth century, when accusations of witchcraft would become ‘a prop to the

main political purpose.’37

In 1584, King James VI obtained an Act to be passed, declaring that the Sovereigns of

Scotland were, by themselves and their councils, ‘judges competent’ to their subjects ‘in all

matters.’38 In 1592, an Act of Parliament forbade the future transfer of church lands into

temporal lordships, except in the case of men who were already lords of Parliament. This is

significant in that it would have made it impossible for the government to use permanent

possession of church lands as reward for loyal service, and therefore would have resulted in the

33

David Calderwood, The History of the Kirk of Scotland, Vol 1. ed. Thomas Thomson (Edinburgh: Wodrow

Society, 1842), 160. 34

Larner, Enemies of God, 66. 35

Goodare, さ“Iottish WitIhIraft PaﾐiI,ざヶ. 36


Ibid. 38

Acts of the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland (Edinburgh: John Greig, 1843), 102.

16

weakening of the aristocracy.39 This Act was necessary to assure the condemnation of the Earl

of Bothwell, who was integral to the politicization of the witch panics. The Act would ensure

that after Bothwell was declared a traitor, his land would be forfeited to the Crown, and his heirs

disinherited in order to prevent any collusive transfer or property.40

Francis Stewart Hepburn, the fifth Earl of Bothwell was charged with witchcraft in 1591,

for allegedly conspiring with witches against the king. James cleverly used Bothwells’ purported

involvement with witches to ‘assert royal authority, outmanoeuvring and finally exiling his most

unpredictable rival.’41 A long-standing troublemaker with a penchant for violence, Bothwell

harboured a deep hatred towards James’ trusted advisor, Chancellor John Maitland. Predictably,

this caused factional strife within the Stuart court. It is worthy of mention, that if James had

drowned on the crossing between Scotland and Denmark, Bothwell would have had a tenuous,

but nevertheless legitimate claim to the throne.42

Bothwell was accused of plotting against James by East Lothian witches in 1591, and it

was rumoured that he had been sent a letter by accused witch Barbara Napier on 27 April 1591.

The letter supposedly encouraged the earl to show that the charges against him had been

invented by his enemies. The accusation of complicity between Bothwell and Napier stemmed

from a tenuous chain of relationship that stretches the limits of credibility, as Barbara Napier was

an acquaintance of the wife of the eighth Earl of Angus, while the Earl of Bothwell was Angus’

brother-in-law. 43

39

Maurice Lee, John Maitland of Thirlestane and the Foundation of the Stewart Despotism in Scotland

(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1959), 252. 40

Ibid. 41


Ibid, 40. 43

Ibid, 39.

17

Regardless of credibility, the rumours nevertheless resulted in Bothwell being proclaimed

as the leader of a mass conspiracy of witches. He and the said witches were accused of using the

black art of witchcraft as a political means to subvert the true Protestant religion and commit

treason against King James.44 George Marioribancks, burgess of Edinburgh, wrote of the

sensational accusation in his Analls of Scotland From the Yeir 1514 to the Yeir 1591, in which he

recorded that,

‘In the yeir heirafter, 1591, ther wes a bruit [rumour] of maney vitches in Scotland, quherof [whereof] ther was diuers taken and execute. Francis, Earle of Bothuell, was bruitit [rumoured] to haue conferitt with some vitches for the king’s slaughter.’45

In being accused of witchcraft, Bothwell would become a symbol of the Devil, and

therefore, complicit with all opposition to the king’s legitimacy and divine authority. Clearly

illustrating this symbolic connection, a royal proclamation of 25 June 1591 against Bothwell

began by immediately aligning the earl with the Devil:

‘Proclamation against FRANCES, sumtyme ERLL BOTHUILL, that nothwithstanding of his Majestys clemency, &c. in superceding, as of befoir, the pronounceing of dome [judgement] agains him, in hoip [hope] of his coverſioun, penitency and amendment, quill [will] now that his hienes, percaving that he hes gevin him self ower altogidder in the handis of Sathan.’46

The proclamation further referred to the Earl of Bothwell’s supposed involvement in the

mass conspiracy of witches aligned against James, and stated that the earl was guilty of

‘tressonabill conspiracie aganis his Majesteis awin person, had consultatioun with

nygromanceris, witcheis, and utheris [otherwise] wickit and ungodly personis.’47

44

Ibid, 44. 45

George Marioribancks, Analls of Scotland From the Yeir 1514 to the Yeir 1591 (Edinburgh: Andrew Balfour,

1814), 55. 46

Criminal Trials in Scotland 1488-1596, ed. Robert Pitcairn (Edinburgh: William Tate, 1839), 259. 47

The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Vol IV A.D. 1585-1592, ed. David Masson (Edinburgh: H.M.

General Register House, 1881), 643-644.

18

In 1592, another proclamation against Bothwell, who by this time had fled Edinburgh,

made it a treasonable offence to ‘ressett [shelter], suplee [allow to pass], intercommoun or shaw

him or his compliceis conforte or relief.’48

James’ notion of a personal Satan as an integral element of the ideology of the witch-hunt

was a direct result of his fear of the earl and of the threat of Bothwell’s political violence. The

unpredictable and often explosive earl ‘terrified the King’ and ‘filled him with an unquenchable

hatred’ which resulted in James’ energies being ‘henceforth directed towards punishing him for

his alleged crime.’49 The accusations culminated in Bothwell’s being ‘elided with the devil,’ and

with witchcraft then seen as ‘the type of all political and religious opposition: witchcraft is

politicized, and politics demonized.’50

James perceived Bothwell as an imminent threat to his reign and attempted to use the

crime of witchcraft to eliminate him, and as such, the charge of witchcraft against the earl was

purely political. Bothwell’s chief accuser, the alleged magician Ritchie Graham, was executed

on 28 February 1592. Graham went to his horrific death of strangulation and burning, insisting

to the bitter end that Bothwell had conspired against the king; ‘Upon Tuisday, the last of Februar,

Richard Grahame the great sorcerer was wirried [strangled] and burnt at the Croce [Cross] of

Edinburgh. He stood hard to his former confession tuiching [relating to] Bothwell’s practice

against the king.’51

Despite James’ political manipulations, Bothwell was acquitted of the witchcraft charges

in August 1593. Not only was James unable to effectively subvert Bothwell’s political influence

at that time, but no assize of nobles was willing to judge the earl guilty of the crime of

48

Register of the Privy Council, IV, 748-749. 49

Lee, John Maitland, 230. 50


Calderwood, History of the Kirk, 148.

19

witchcraft. The general disbelief of Bothwell’s involvement in the nefarious arts is evident in a

letter written to the nobility in his defence, sometime between in June and July 1591, which

stated that ‘Since justice is perverted by fear and force and craft…the charge against Bothwell is

an incredible and unnatural accusation.’52 Ultimately, the earl’s supposed involvement in a

widespread witchcraft conspiracy against the king was ‘eclipsed by the danger he posed to royal

power and safety.’53

The difficulty in prosecuting Bothwell, despite the desire of the king that he be severely

punished, was due to the weakness of evidence against him as well as the obvious reluctance of

the aristocracy to allow one of their ilk to be punished for such a crime.54 Bothwell’s trial

concluded with his acquittal on 10 August 1593 with the statement, ‘The assize in a vote acquits

the Earl Bothwell of the whole dittay above written, and that touching [relating to] the

destruction of his majesty’s person by witchcraft as is particularly above deduced.’55 Although

Bothwell was exonerated, James’ aims were ultimately achieved. Bothwell’s power was

effectively neutralized by the king in February 1595, when the earl was excommunicated and

exiled from Scotland.56

52

さIﾐ DefeﾐIe of Earl Both┘ell: To the NoHilit┞ ふヱヵΓヱぶ,ざ The Warrender Papers, Vol II, ed. Annie I. Cameron

(Edinburgh: University Press, 1932), 154. 53



さThe Trial of the Earl of Both┘ell, ヱヰ August ヱヵΓン,ざ in Normand and Roberts, Witchcraft in Early Modern

Scotland, 287. 56

Normand and Roberts, Witchcraft in Early Modern Scotland, 49.

20

IV. THE KING’S AUTHORITY ATTACKED

‘Therefore, sir, as I have diverse times before told you, so now again I must tell you, there are two kings and two kingdoms in Scotland; there is Christ Jesus the King of the Church, whose subject king James VI is, and of whose kingdom he is not a king, nor a lord, nor a head, but a member. Those whom Christ has called and commanded to watch over his church, and govern his spiritual kingdom, have sufficient power from him to do this, both severally and jointly, the which no Christian king should control…’57

The late sixteenth-century witch hunts developed during a time of political turmoil and

instability within the kingdom. The king’s involvement with witchcraft, which began in 1590,

occurred amid a series of challenges to, and attacks upon his royal authority. Prominent among

these was a power struggle between the king and the Kirk that reached back to 1578, when after

an eleven-year regency twelve-year old James ascended the throne and assumed full power as

King of Scotland.58

In 1584, James exercised his royal authority and encouraged his Parliament to pass the

Black Acts, which asserted his supremacy over the Kirk.59 Many Presbyterian leaders, including

the zealous minister Andrew Melville, were adamantly opposed to the blatantly Erastian Acts

and vociferously attacked the new legislation.60 Twenty ministers, including Melville, fled to

England after the passing of the Black Acts, and did not return until 1587.61 Although a marked

amelioration between James and his ministers would occur later, largely due to the cooperation

required between king and Kirk in order to prosecute witches, at the onset of the late sixteenth-

century witchcraft trials, James’s authority was nevertheless overtly questioned by his ministers.

57

Thomas McCrie, The Life of Andrew Melville, the Scottish Reformer (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of

Publication, 1840), 76. 58


Ibid. 60

A.R. MacDonald, "The Subscription Crisis and Church-State Relations, 1584-1586," Records of the Scottish

Church History Society, 25 (1994), 222-255. Note: けErastiaﾐisﾏげ refers to the idea that the church should

be entirely under the control of the State, as per the doctrine of the sixteenth-century Swiss theologian

Thomas Erastus. 61


21

Numerous episodes occurred in which he was admonished or reprimanded, even from the pulpit

at the Little Kirk.62 These incidents likely contributed to James’ adamant assertion of his

authority and right to rule, resulting in his becoming personally involved in the 1590-1 witch

trials, as well as their continuation in 1597. It is also highly possible that the overt assailment

directed towards both his dignity and royal authority influenced the writing of his treatise,

Daemonologie.

The authority of the king was attacked on numerous occasions during 1591. During an

adultery trial on 13 January 1591, the Earl of Bothwell forcibly removed a witness ‘who could

depone [testify] most in that mater’ from the Tolbooth, with ‘the king sitting in the meane tyme

with the Lords of the Sessioun in the Tolbuith’ and threatened the witness with the gallows.63

David Calderwood, in his History of the Kirk of Scotland, later referred to Bothwell’s blatant

disregard for both the king’s authority and his presence in the Tolbooth, remarking that ‘Manie

enormiteis were committed, as if there had beene no King in Israell; so contemptible was the

king’s authoritie, and that through his owne default, wanting due care and courage to minister

justice.’64

The Presbyterian ministers were particularly vehement in their contempt for James and

his insistence on the royal supremacy over the Kirk. In March 1574, the General Assembly of

the Kirk had declared its authority by claiming that ‘its right to exist came directly from God,’ in

effect establishing itself as a ‘sovereign religious institution, separate from and superior to the

temporal power of nobles and crown.’65 This declaration would later directly conflict with

James’ personal belief in his God-given right to rule, which included his supremacy over the

62

The Little Kirk refers to the Parish Church of St. Cuthbert in Edinburgh. 63

Calderwood, History of the Kirk, 117. Note: The Tolbooth was a primary municipal building in which the

court house and jail were located. 64

Ibid. 65


22

Kirk, and would lead to a long conflict between king and Kirk, in which each were determined to

assert control and dominance over the other.

On 8 June 1591, the king was confronted by a group of irate ministers in the Chancellors

lodging. They boldly voiced their dissatisfaction with his treatment of their ecclesiastical

offices, claiming that the king had ‘givin suche occasioun of contempt of our ministrie.’66 James

responded to the verbal assault by stressing his God-given right to ‘soverane judgement of all

things within this realme.’67 One of the ministers, Mr. Robert Pont, refused to acquiesce, and

with great insolence replied that ‘There is a judgement above yours, and that is God’s, putt in the

hand of the ministrie.’68 As he firmly believed in his right to rule over the Kirk and all its

ecclesiastics, it is not difficult to imagine that such disregard for his royal authority would have

incensed the king.

James was in attendance in the Little Kirk on 6 June 1591, when during his sermon, Mr.

Robert Bruce openly criticized the king before all who were present, declaring that the instability

and turmoil within the realm was a result of the contempt that the people of Scotland felt towards

him. Bruce questioned, ‘what could the great disobedience of this land meane now, whill the

king was present; seing as reverence was borne to his shadow when he was absent?’ then

answered his own question by boldly stating that:

‘it meant an universall contempt of the subjects: therefore willed the king to call to God, before he ather eate or drinke, that the lord would give him a resolutioun to execute justice upon malefactors, although it sould be with the hazard of his life. Which, if he would interprise courageouslie, the Lord would raise enew to assist him, and all these impediments would vanish away.’69

66

Calderwood, History of the Kirk, 117. 67

Ibid. 68

Ibid, 131. 69

Ibid, 129-130.

23

Such blatant irreverence directed at his person - during a sermon no less - would have

undoubtedly inflamed the king by challenging his ability to rule his kingdom, and served to

incite his belief in divine right.

Further evidence of the Presbyterian ministers’ audacity in addressing the king without

due respect can be discerned in an exchange between James and Mr. J. Davidson, in which the

minister brazenly berated the king, and accused him of diverse acts of negligence, including

‘neglect of justice, carelesse appointing of ministers of justice, placing unfit men in offices’ and

‘granting remissiouns.’70

Nor was James immune from criticism by his own Assembly.71 In a report from the sixth

session of the Commissions of the General Assembly, held on 21 May 1592, the Assembly

‘directed their brethrein’ to present their articles to the king:

‘…to lament the daylie decay of religioun, disorder, and laike [lack] of justice within this realm and gravelie to admonish his Majestie, in the name of the Eternall, to have respect in time to the estate of true religioun perishing, and to the manifold murthers, oppressiouns, and enormiteis daylie multiplied, through impunitie and laike of justice; and to discharge his kinglie office in both, as he would eshew the fearefull challenge of God, and turne his wrathe off his Majestie and the whole land.’72

It was not only James’ ministers and General Assembly who took it upon themselves to

rebuke him. A more personal admonition was delivered to the king in 1592 by one of his own

subjects, Helene Guthrie, a young woman who hailed from Aberdeen. She approached James to

‘admonishe the king of his duetie,’ as she was extremely ‘disquietted with the sinnes raigning in

the countrie, swearing, filthie speeking, profanatioun of the Sabboth.’73 Furthermore, Guthrie

‘prayed that desirous vice should be punished, and speciallie murther, which was cheefelie

70

Ibid, 140. Note: A remission is the dispensation of a crime and subsequent dissolution of any penalties

incurred. 71

The General Assembly was the highest authoritative body within the Kirk. 72

Calderwood, History of the Kirk, 157. 73

Ibid, 169.

24

craved at his hands.’74 Calderwood later poignantly described the account, stating that ‘So great

and manie were the enormiteis in the countrie, through impunitie and want of justice, that the

mindes of simple and poore young weomen were disquieted, as yee may see; but the king and

court had deafe eares to the crying sinnes.’75

On 7 February 1592, the second Earl of Moray died at the hands of the sixth Earl of

Huntley, a distrusted Catholic. It was unfortunate for James and his already much-disparaged

royal image that he was implicated in the murder. As the king had long despised Moray, a

known supporter of the troublesome Earl of Bothwell, ‘the people blamed him as guiltie, and not

without caus. For he hated the Erle of Murrey…the erle was suspected to be a favourer of

Bothwell.’76 Due to the disfavour and harsh criticism which resulted from his suspected

involvement, James inevitably wanted to counter this negative public opinion. In his efforts to

accomplish this, he demanded of his ministers that they ‘cleere his part before the people,’ and

hastily had his innocence proclaimed throughout the realm.77 Existing negative public sentiment

and its effect on James is evident in a letter he wrote to the Earl of Huntly, in which he

acknowledged the discord within the realm, and lamented, ‘I have beene in suche danger and

perrell of my life, as since I was borne I was never in the like, partlie by the grudging and

tumults of the people.’78

James’s on-going struggle with his ministers, and his need to assert his authority were

plainly evident in the face of attack, particularly in aftermath of the Moray murder. On 24 May

1592, the Presbyterian ministers presented articles to the king, at which time Andrew Melville, in

defence of certain ‘worthie men’ with whom James had found fault, emphatically reproached the

74

Ibid. 75

Ibid. 76

Ibid, 144. 77

Ibid, 145. 78

Ibid, 146-147.

25

king, and declared that ‘these men sett the crowne upon his head.’79 James’ belief in the divine

right theory of kingship and in his God-given authority to rule was never more apparent than

when he responded to Melville, stating that his crown and hereditary right to rule the kingdom

‘came by successioun, and not by anie man.’80

That same year, the ministers of the Kirk exploited the king’s known fear of the Earl of

Bothwell, and seized the opportunity to implement the Presbyterian system of church

government and advance their own political agenda.81 James gave his consent to an Act by

which ‘Presbyterianism was established in its integrity.’82 The Act for Abolisheing of the Actis

contrair the trewe Religioun, which ‘ratifies and apprevis all liberties priuileges Immvnities and

fredomes quhatſumeuir [whatsomever] gevin and grantit be his hienes his regentis in his Name to

ony of his prediceſſors to the trew and hally kirk preſentlie eſtabliſhit [presently established]

within this realm,’ solidified the Presbyterian form of church government in on 5 June 1592.83

Although the radical Presbyterian movement had at last been firmly established, the clash

between the Presbyterian ministers’ ideals and those of the king, and the ‘church-crown conflict

over which was the sovereign authority in the state’ caused increasing problems for the

monarch.84 Despite the ministers’ demands that the king punish Catholic rebels within the realm,

including the ‘dissident Catholic earls,’ James was more inclined to support peace between the

two religious factions, and it was apparent that he wanted to ‘reintegrate them into the body

79

Ibid, 159. 80

Ibid. 81

Normand and Roberts, Witchcraft in Early Modern Scotland, 45-46. 82

Samuel R. Gardiner, History of England from the Accession of James I to the Outbreak of the Civil War

(London: Longmans, Green and Co, 1883), 50. 83

The Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Vol III. 1567-1592, ed. T. Thomson (London: Printed by Command of

His Majesty King George the Third, 1814), 541. 84


26

politic.’85 Much to the dismay of his ministers, James ‘responded to Roman Catholic activity by

downplaying and even ignoring it.’86

In September 1592, James refused to persecute the Catholic earls further when they

returned from exile, and even considered restoring to them their previously confiscated estates.

Incensed by James’ leniency, the Presbyterian ministers sent a deputation to the king to voice

their dissatisfaction. The encounter between James and the deputation offers a clear example of

the power struggle between the king and his Kirk. The ministers relentlessly attacked the king’s

authority, and questioned his ability to rule effectively, while James, in turn, continued to assert

his royal authority.

Upon the arrival of the delegation, James interrupted the group when they attempted to

speak to him, and immediately questioned their authority to meet with him without first

obtaining a warrant, ‘finding fault with him that cam ther callit.’87 Andrew Melville did not heed

the warning, and railed against James, claiming the king had ‘a calling to com heir be Chryst

Jesus the King, and his Kirk,’ and proceeded to charge the king by stating that ‘yow and your

Esteattes in his name, and of his Kirk, That yie fawour nocht his enemies whome he hates.’88

The following month, Melville, along with the Commissioners of the General Assembly,

accosted James at Falkland Palace.89 In an astonishing display of disrespect towards the king,

and in utter disregard for the long-established protocol which dictated that no person was

permitted to physically lay their hands on an anointed monarch, Melville caught hold of the king

85

Goodare, さ“Iottish WitIhIraft PaﾐiI,ざヵヲ. 86


James Melville, The Diary of Mr. James Melville, 1556-1601 (Edinburgh: Ballantyne, 1820), 244. 88

Ibid. 89

Falklaﾐd palaIe ┘as oﾐe of t┘o ‘eﾐaissaﾐIe palaIes iﾐ “Iotlaﾐd duriﾐg Jaﾏesげ reigﾐ, aﾐd ┘as a fa┗orite retreat of the king.

27

by his sleeve, and called him ‘Gods sillie vassall.’90 He then chastised James, declaring that

there were two kings and two kingdoms in Scotland. Charging the king with attempting to

placate both the Protestants and Catholics to his own ends, Melville stated that ‘Thair is Chryst

Jesus the King, and his kingdome the Kirk, whase subiect King James the Saxt is, and of whase

kingdome nocht a king, nor a lord, nor a heid, bot a member.’91 Such a declaration would have

assuredly been considered as a direct affront to James’ divine right to rule.

Andrew Melville

While none of the aforementioned incidents directly pertains to the North Berwick witch-

hunts, they nevertheless provide an insight into James’ personal ideological views, and the

instability of his reign at the beginning of the witch panics. It was during this period of political

turmoil that he not only became personally involved in the trials, but also penned his

demonological treatise. When taking this into account, it is reasonable to assume that the insults

directed towards him, as well as the numerous attacks on his authority so incensed him that he

acted with greater determination than he might have otherwise in perpetuating the 1590-1 witch

trials, as well as those five years hence. 90

Melville, The Diary of Mr. James Melville, 244. 91

Ibid, 245.

28

V. THE NORTH BERWICK WITCH TRIALS ‘Two soothsayers, or wizards rather, above the miserable caste who usually bore that character, had confessed having been the cause, by magical rites, of raising the storm by which the queen’s fleet had been driven back to Norway; and that they had also consulted about doing harm to the fleet or person of the king.’92

For most witch panics in Scotland, there was no single catalyst, the exception being the

panic of 1590-1, ‘which was orchestrated by the king to the extent that it involved treason.’93

This particular panic, known as the North Berwick witch-hunt, was unique in that it was ‘one of

the few witch-hunts in Scotland in which members of the nobility were accused, and members of

the gentry were convicted and executed.’94 It was also significant in that it was ‘the first mass

trial since witchcraft was incorporated into the criminal law,’ as well as ‘the last of the old type

of political witch-trial, in which the accusation of witchcraft was a prop to the main political

purpose.’95

The specific objective of the witch trials was two-fold, in that it incriminated the fifth

Earl of Bothwell, and sought to establish the king as the Devil’s greatest enemy on earth.96 The

latter purpose, more than any other aspect of the trials, illustrated James’ belief that his authority

was vested by divine will, that he was answerable to God alone, and subsequently accorded his

throne with greater legitimacy.

The North Berwick trials were part of a larger group of witchcraft trials which began

during the autumn of 1590. Unlike other Scottish witchcraft trials at the end of the century, the

North Berwick trials are singular in that James and his Privy Council took charge of the court

92

Sir Walter Scott, History of Scotland in Two Volumes, Vol II (Paris: A. and W. Galignani, 1830), 390. 93

Goodare, "Witch-Hunting and the Scottish State," 137. 94

Yeoﾏaﾐ, さHuﾐtiﾐg the ‘iIh WitIh,ざヱヰΒ. 95


Ibid.

29

proceedings and were closely involved with the both examination of the accused witches and

their trials. Eminently due to the king’s personal involvement, the legal records of these

particular trials are well preserved, and as such, an examination of them affords a glimpse, not

only into James’ own beliefs and ideology, but also into the need of the young king to assert his

royal authority.97

King James VI, c. 1590.

The political significance of the trials is illustrated in both the propaganda pamphlet,

News from Scotland, and James’ own treatise, Daemonologie, which arose from his direct

involvement in the proceedings. The surviving legal records involving the trials of accused

witches Agnes Sampson, John Fian, Barbara Napier and Euphame MacCalzean, in particular, are

remarkably intact, and provide a wealth of information regarding the active involvement of the

Privy Council and the king in the trials, which ostensibly began in late November 1590. The

97

James was 24 years old at the onset of the North Berwick witch trials.

30

abovementioned trials are significant in that they demonstrate the concern of the state for the

safety and security of the king’s life, and the importance of the crime of treason to the

proceedings.

James’s fear of witchcraft had increased after returning to Scotland in the spring of 1590,

with his new bride, Anne of Denmark, amid furious storms at sea. The witch-hunts began

shortly after the royal couple’s arrival, amid rumours that the near-disastrous storms were the

result of witchery originating in both Denmark and Scotland.98 The first of the North Berwick

court dittays was that of accused wizard John Fian dated 26 December 1590.99 The dittay states

that Fian had attempted to kill the king by ‘assembling himself with Satan at the king’s returning

from Denmark, where Satan promised to raise a mist and cast the king’s Majesty in England’ as

well as for ‘joining with Satan in a ship on the sea, when Satan said Ye shall sink the ship.’100

The North Berwick panic, sparked by the confession of witchcraft by a maidservant named

Geillis Duncan, soon blazed out of control like a forest fire, with the king fanning the flames. By

the end of 1591, more than seventy men and women had been tried and burned at the stake.

Prior to 1563, the crime of witchcraft was tried in ecclesiastical courts. After the passing

of the Witchcraft Act of 1563, offenses concerning witchcraft, sorcery and necromancy were

incorporated into Scots criminal law, and ‘transferred to the jurisdiction of the kirk and the

secular courts.’101 It was under the 1563 Act that Agnes Sampson, John Fian, Barbara Napier

and Euphame MacCalzean were tried by the Edinburgh justiciary court in 1590-1.102 The North

Berwick accused witches were personally examined by the king and Privy Council, and James’

98

さE┝aﾏiﾐatioﾐs aﾐd Coﾐfessioﾐs of Geillis DuﾐIaﾐ aﾐd Agﾐes “aﾏpsoﾐ, DeIeﾏHer ヱヵΓヰ,ざ in Normand and

Roberts, Witchcraft in Early Modern Scotland, 135. 99

Christina Larner, A Source-Book of Scottish Witchcraft, ed. Christina Larner, Christopher Hyde Lee, Hugh V.

McLachlan (Glasgow: Department of Sociology, University of Glasgow, 1977), 103. 100

Larner, Source-Book, 228. 101


Ibid, 91.

31

personal involvement in the trials was due, in part, to the fact that the Crown had significantly

less power over criminal justice than civil justice, with both the offices of justiciar and sheriff

becoming hereditary in the sixteenth century, resulting in the king having control over neither

office. As the only crime outside of the authority of the justiciar was treason, James’s only

alternative for establishing control during the witch trials was to apply his feudal right to sit in

judgment in person.103 Accordingly, James’s involvement in the trials, along with the fact that

torture was used extensively during the interrogations, requires that the examinations,

depositions and confessions be viewed as reflecting, at least in part, the ideas, will, and ulterior

motives of the king.

While James’s assertion of his royal authority is evident in his highly unorthodox act of

taking control of the pre-trial examinations, it is his absolutism which is most apparent in his

advocating the use of torture to force confessions during the investigations. Established legal

procedures in Scotland held that torture was only allowed if it was first sanctioned by the Privy

Council, yet no warrant was issued for the use of torture during the examinations that took place

between December 1590 and June 1591.104 The first Privy Council warrant for torture in

conjunction with the North Berwick trials was not issued until late 1591, along with a

commission for discovery of witches, which specifically advocated the use of torture:

‘the personis willful or refusand to declair the veritie to putt to tortour, or sic uthir punishement to use and caus be usit as may move thame to utter the treuth, and generallie all and sindrie utheris thingis to do and use that herin is requisite to be done;’105

As the commission had been passed on 6 October 1591, the use of torture during examinations

which had taken place prior to that date was, therefore, an illegal act. Despite the lack of legal

103



The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Vol IV A.D. 1585-1592, ed. David Masson (Edinburgh: H.M.

General Register House, 1881), 680.

32

authorization, James sanctioned the use of torture during the North Berwick examinations,

asserting his belief that as an anointed king, he was above the law.

James’ belief in his divine right to rule can be discerned in diverse pre-trial examinations

and confessions of the North Berwick witches, beginning with the fragmentary notes detailing

the examinations of Geillis Duncan and Agnes Sampson, which occurred sometime prior to

December 1590. In the examinations, Duncan’s complicity in the storms which imperilled

James and Anne is recorded, with her confession to having taken part in raising storms for the

‘staying of the queen’s coming home.’106

Woodcut from News from Scotland, depicting King James witnessing the trials.

106

さE┝aﾏiﾐatioﾐs of Duncan and Sampson,ざ in Normand and Roberts, Witchcraft in Early Modern Scotland,

137.

33

Sampson was examined again on December 4 and 5, at which time the intimate

involvement of the king can be clearly determined. James personally examined Sampson, to the

extent of pointing out inconsistencies within her confession, ‘These contraries being gathered,

his Majesty charged straitly to confess the truth, which she did after followeth.’107 This incident

illustrates James’ God-given power and ability to discern and extract the truth, even from

witches in the Devil’s infernal employ. James’ power over the witches, and as such, over the

Devil himself is reinforced by Sampson’s claiming that she had made a vow not to confess, but

due to ‘his Majesty’s speeches that had moved her’ she yielded, and even ‘praised God that had

wrought a repentance in her.’108 This also served to paint James as divine, with the power to

bring sinners back to God.

In an overt reflection of James’ power struggle with the Kirk, and his belief in his

authority to rule supreme over them, according to Agnes Sampson, the Devil claimed that ‘the

ministers would destroy the king and all Scotland, and if he would use his counsel he should

destroy them.’109 Not only does this confession at the hands of James and his council support the

king’s authority, but it also openly criticizes the Presbyterian ministers. Agnes Sampson

apparently felt compelled to ask of the Devil whether or not the king would have heirs, to which

the Devil replied ‘that he should have lads and then lasses.’110 This particular detail, which

seems out of place within the overall examination record, appears to have been included solely to

confer greater legitimacy upon James by referring to his future children, and in essence, the

continuation of the Stuart dynasty.

107

Ibid, 139. 108

Ibid, 146. 109

Ibid, 139. 110

Ibid.

34

The considerable power bestowed upon the witches by the Devil is recorded in Duncan’s

deposition dated 15 January 1591, in which she states that during a conversation with Agnes

Sampson regarding the king’s journey to Norway to meet his bride, Sampson had claimed that

she would ‘be there before them.’111 This suggests that Sampson was a powerful enough witch

to be able to transcend the laws of nature and cover great distances, possibly by flying, and also

implies that she has the capacity of foresight.

Further evidence of the diabolical might of the witches, as well as the king’s divine

power, are revealed in the depositions of Janet Stratton and Donald Robson taken on or around

29 January 1591. While describing a conversation concerning the king’s planned destruction,

Stratton claimed that she asked the Devil for his assistance in the matter, to which he replied ‘I

shall do it, but it will be long because it will be thwarted.’112 Stratton’s confession serves the

king’s motives exceedingly well on two fronts. Her apparent confidence in asking the Devil’s

assistance highlights her position as a witch to be reckoned with, while the Devil’s claim that

destroying the king will be no easy task serves to assert James’ own strength as a formidable

adversary of evil.

Donald Robson’s confession, taken that same day, echoes this implication. In his

account, he refers to the meeting between the Devil and the witches at the North Berwick kirk, at

which time one Robert Grierson ‘found fault with the devil because the king’s picture was not

made; who promised that it should be the next morning.’113 He claimed that Euphame

MacCalzean instructed Greirson to ‘speer at the devil for the picture.’114 A waxen image of

111

さDepositioﾐ of Geillis DuﾐIaﾐ, ヵ DeIeﾏHer ヱヵΓヰ aﾐd ヱヵ Jaﾐuar┞ ヱヵΓヱ,ざ in Normand and Roberts, Witchcraft

in Early Modern Scotland, 150. 112

さCoﾐfessioﾐs aﾐd Depositioﾐs of Geillis DuﾐIaﾐ, Jaﾐet “trattoﾐ aﾐd Doﾐald ‘oHsoﾐ, ヲΓ Jaﾐuar┞ ヱヵΓヱ,ざ in


Ibid, 166. 114

Ibid.

35

James was to be produced by the Devil and then burned for the purpose of bringing about the

king’s death, but when it was not forthcoming, Greirson and Sampson openly criticized the

Devil, who then promised to fulfil their demands before the next meeting. The witches’ power is

implicit in their lack of hesitation to both criticize and make demands of the Devil, while James’

own position of authority is alluded to by the difficulty experienced by the Devil in attempting to

reproduce the king’s image.

One of the more unusual statements made during the examinations offers a particularly

interesting example of the alleged supernatural ability given to the witches by their dark master.

On May 5, Bessie Thomson confessed that ‘she was present at the raising of the dead corpses in

the kirk and kirk-yard of North Berwick.’115 The specific purpose of raising the dead is not

explained, but Thomson’s gruesome claim undoubtedly served to affirm the potency of the

witches’ magic by drawing a parallel between their capabilities and that of God, whose power to

raise the dead is referred to in the Bible, such as in the following verse from the Book of Ezekiel,

‘And ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I haue opened your graues, O my people, and

brought you vp out of your graues.’116 In likening their abilities to those of the Almighty, the

witches’ power becomes a mirror in which James’ own divine authority, as well as his

fearlessness in confronting the forces of evil, can be viewed.

The matter of the wax image of the king and its alleged commission by the Earl of

Bothwell, is further detailed in the examinations of Bessie Thomson, Janet Stratton, Donald

Robson and Ritchie Graham which occurred between January and April 1591. These served to

politicize the witchcraft trials by incriminating Bothwell, as well as asserting James’ legitimacy

and ability to rule effectively. Of further import is the overt attempt which can be discerned

115

さE┝aﾏiﾐatioﾐs of Geillis DuﾐIaﾐ, Doﾐald ‘oHsoﾐ aﾐd Bessie Thoﾏsoﾐ, ヵ Ma┞ ヱヵΓヱ,ざ in Normand and


Ezekiel 37:13, King James Bible (1611).

36

within the examinations, to implicate Barbara Napier and Euphame MacCalzean, both of whom

would factor significantly in the trials.

Thomson, Stratton, Robson and Graham confessed to being present at a meeting, or

convention of witches at Prestonpans, where the demise of James was proposed and planned

between themselves and the Devil, as well as to the existence of the aforementioned wax image

of the king.117 Duncan incriminated Bothwell, by stating that ‘she heard my Lord Bothwell

spoken of,’ a claim which was further supported by Robson, who declared that the intent to

destroy James was ‘sought to be done for my Lord Bothwell.’118 The accused also described the

wax image of the king, which was allegedly passed between all of the witches present, ‘out of ilk

one of their hands to the other.’119

Barbara Napier and Euphame MacCalzean would become central to the witch trials

between May and June 1591. Both women were accused by Robson and Stratton in the pre-trial

examinations as having attended witches’ meetings and of handling the wax image of James.

MacCalzean also implicated Napier, by claiming to have seen Janet Stratton ‘at North Berwick

together with Agnes Sampson and Barbara Napier.’120 Ronald in turn, gave evidence against

MacCalzean, stating that when asked about what would happen after they succeeded in causing

James’ death, MacCalzean answered ‘The realm will not want a king.’121 This statement is

significant in that it implies Bothwell’s involvement in the conspiracy by insinuating that he will

attempt to claim the throne upon James’ death.

117

Prestonpans is a village in East Lothian, east of Edinburgh. 118

さExaminations of Duncan, Robson and Thomson,ざ in Normand and Roberts, Witchcraft in Early Modern

Scotland, 174-175. 119

Ibid. 120

さDepositioﾐs of Bessie Thoﾏsoﾐ, Jaﾐet “trattoﾐ aﾐd Doﾐald ‘oHsoﾐ, aﾐd Coﾐfroﾐtatioﾐ of BarHara Napier and Euphame MacCalzean by the Depositions of Robson, Stratton and Ritchie Grahaﾏ,ざ in Normand and


Ibid.

37

Concerning James’ need to assert his legitimacy, the most telling part of these particular

examinations can found in Robson’s May 5 confession, when upon being informed by Sampson

as to the malevolent purpose of the wax image of the king, he claims to have cried ‘Alas, what

will come of Scotland then?’122 Much like the statement made by Sampson the previous

December, in which it was prophesied by the Devil that James would beget many heirs;

Robson’s exclamation serves the king’s aims well by intimating that the well-being of the realm

is dependent on his continued reign.

The June 1591 deposition of Janet Kennedy is especially significant, in that it clearly

reveals James’ manipulation of the witch-hunts to his own end. During her examination, which

was conducted in the presence of James, Kennedy described how she witnessed Agnes Sampson

using witchcraft in an attempt to harm the king. According to Kennedy, Sampson placed an

image of James beside the fire to ‘have made it fried,’ or tortured by the heat of the flames, but

that the image refused to burn.123 Sampson then claimed their efforts to be futile, and that ‘all

was in vain they assayed against the king for nothing of their craft could do at him.’124 James’

use of the examinations to assert his God-given authority is clearly evinced by Kennedy’s

concluding declaration that ‘the king needs to be feared of nothing under God, for she saw by

experience at that time all that the devil might do against the king and yet took no effect.’125

The dittays of only four accused North Berwick witches have survived.126 John Fian,

Agnes Sampson, Barbara Napier and Euphame MacCalzean were all tried before the justiciary

court in Edinburgh between December 1590 and June 1591. When considering the motives of

122

さExaminations of Duncan, Robson and Thomson,ざ in Normand and Roberts, Witchcraft in Early Modern

Scotland, 175. 123

さDepositioﾐ of Jaﾐet Keﾐﾐed┞, Juﾐe ヱヵΓヱ,ざ in Normand and Roberts, Witchcraft in Early Modern Scotland,

185. 124

Ibid. 125

Ibid. 126

A dittay is an indictment against a person accused of a crime.

38

the king, it hardly seems a coincidence that the prosecutor in all four of the abovementioned

cases was Mr. David McGill, who held the position of king’s advocate.127 The position of king’s

advocate was a relatively new addition to the legal cornucopia, having emerged only near the end

of the sixteenth century as a result of the ‘centralizing of royal power.’128

Woodcut from News depicting John Fian practicing magic (top R)

The trials of Fian and Sampson lasted but one day each, whereas those of Napier and

MacCalzean were extensive, taking over one month to culminate. The two earlier trials involved

persons of the lower social classes - Fian was a country schoolmaster and Sampson was a village

wise woman - whereas the latter two concerned women of higher status in Edinburgh who were

127


Ibid.

39

known to members of the nobility such as Lady Angus and the Earl of Bothwell.129 This

evolution of the accused, from lower to upper echelon in society, served to bring the threat of

witchcraft ever closer to the political realm of the king.

The dittay of John Fian, dated 26 December 1590 is brief, with the most important items

concerning the conspiracy against James and Queen Anne. James’ position as the Devil’s foe is

stressed by dittay items six through eight, in which Fian is accused of ‘foreknowledge of the leak

that struck up in the queen’s ship,’ ‘for the raising of winds at the king’s passing to Denmark,’

and for ‘assembling himself with Satan at the king’s returning from Denmark, where Satan

promised to raise a mist and cast the king’s Majesty in England.’130 Dittay item thirteen recounts

the journey of Fian and his erstwhile companions across the sea to ‘a tryst they had with another

witch,’ and states that they met upon a ship, drank wine, then caused ‘the said ship to perish with

the persons being therein.’131 This item lends significant credibility to the great danger the

witches posed to the king and queen. By highlighting the ability of the witches to travel across a

wide expanse of ocean and seemingly effortlessly capsize an unknown vessel, the alleged

attempt to sink the ships carrying the king and queen is given greater validity. Thus, by way of

surviving such great peril, James’ position as one chosen by God, and therefore under divine

protection, is reassured. The brief trial of Fian concluded with his conviction as a ‘common

notorious witch and enchanter.’132 He was strangled and burned on the castle hill in Edinburgh

sometime in late January 1591.133

129

Ibid, 220. 130

さThe Trial of John Fian, 26 December ヱヵΓヰ,ざ iﾐ Normand and Roberts, Witchcraft in Early Modern Scotland,

228. 131

Ibid, 229. 132


Ibid.

40

The articles of Agnes Sampson’s dittay reveal a litany of activities pertaining to cunning

women, such as using ‘prayer and conjuration when she healed sick folk’ and of using charms to

foretell the future and prevent livestock from dying.134 Mirroring Fian’s dittay, Sampson’s

details her knowledge of the storms raised in an attempt to prevent the king and queen from

reaching Scotland, and that ‘there would be a great scathe both by sea and land.’135 Sampson

was convicted of witchcraft and strangled and burned to death on 28 January 1591.136

The most compelling of the North Berwick witch trials is that of Barbara Napier. It is

within the documents and particular events pertaining to this case that the use of the trials by

James to assert his royal authority is most evident. Napier’s trial commenced on 8 May 1591;

the politicization of the trial is apparent from the onset, with the accused being arraigned for

using witchcraft in an attempt to destroy the king at the Earl of Bothwell’s instigation.137 Her

connection to the higher classes of society, and proximal danger posed to the king, is

demonstrated in article one of her dittay, in which she is accused of consulting with Sampson

‘for the help of Dame Jean Lyon, Lady Angus, to keep her from vomiting when she was in

breeding of bairn.’138 Dittay item seven further illustrates her connection to the nobility, lending

greater legitimacy to the threat of witchcraft directed at the king’s life. The article accuses

Napier of consulting with Sampson to bring about the death of Archibald Douglas, the eighth

Earl of Angus, who had died three years earlier.139 By drawing a connection between the

134

さThe Trial of Agnes Sampson, 27 January 1591,ざ in Normand and Roberts, Witchcraft in Early Modern

Scotland, 233. 135

Ibid. 136


Ibid, 211. 138

さThe Trial of BarHara Napier, 8-10 May 1591,ざ in Normand and Roberts, Witchcraft in Early Modern

Scotland, 249. 139

Ibid, 250.

41

accused witch and the death of a peer of the realm, the threat to the king’s life is validated, as is

his fearlessness in facing such peril.

Although she was convicted of the first five items in her dittay, which describe consulting

with witches, Napier was acquitted by her assizers of the sixth, seventh and eighth items,

including the serious charge of conspiring to destroy the Earl of Angus. Much to the

consternation of the king, Napier’s assizers ‘considered the evidence defective.’140 By not

finding her guilty of attempting to kill the Earl of Angus by witchcraft, the tenuous connection

between Napier and the alleged threat she posed to the king’s life was substantially weakened.

By 10 May, Napier had not yet been sentenced, and that day a letter written by James was

delivered to Napier’s assizers, demanding to know why she had not yet been executed for her

crimes, and ‘pronouncing of the doom underwritten against’ the accused:141

‘Whereupon no doom is pronounced against her as yet. Our will is herefore and we charge you that incontinent after the sight hereof, ye pronounce the doom against her for the said crimes, according to the laws of our realm and acts of parliament; that is to say, that she shall be tane to the castle hill of the burgh of Edinburgh and there be bound to the stake beside the fire and worried thereat while she be dead.’142

James also demanded that the assizers account for their decision of acquittal, which

although reached according to the due process of the law, was nevertheless at odds with his will,

‘…as ye will answer to us upon your office and obedience. Whereanent these presents shall serve

you as sufficient warrant.’143

140

James Taylor, The Pictorial History of Scotland, from the Roman Invasion to the Close of the Jacobite

Rebellion, A.D. 79-1746 (London: James S. Virtue, 1859), p 341. 141

さBarHara Napier,ざ in Normand and Roberts, Witchcraft in Early Modern Scotland, 250. 142

Ibid, 251. 143

Ibid.

42

Proceedings by ‘assize of error’ were unknown in Scottish jurisprudence, which did not

allow for the king to personally take over the office of judge in criminal trial proceedings.144

James was enraged at Napier’s assizers for not reaching his desired decision, and for not

immediately sentencing her to death, and as such, ‘so little did he regard the restraints of the law,

when opposed to the personal will of the sovereign, that he resolved to being the jurors to trial

before himself, on the charge of wilful error, in clearing Barbara Napier of treason against the

king’s person.’145

Although James had been described as ‘having a thorough dislike of dogmatism in

others,’ he was also known to be ‘the most dogmatic of men.’146 Due to this characteristic, James

was more than willing ‘to conceive the worst of those who stood up against him.’147 When taking

this into account, along with his deep-seated need to assert his royal authority, James’ reaction to

Napier’s acquittal is understandable.

Not surprisingly, in accordance with the king’s will, the accused was sentenced to ‘be

burned in the castle hill of Edinburgh.’148 According to her dittay, ‘after pronouncing of which

doom,’ Napier then けdeclared that she was with bairn,’ a desperate action which resulted in a

temporary stay of execution, as ‘no execution of the said doom could be used against her while

she was delivered of her birth.’149 James’ extreme displeasure at this turn of events can be

discerned in a letter written to his Chancellor, John Maitland, in which he gives instructions

regarding Napier and other accused witches:

144

Taylor, Pictorial History of Scotland, 341. 145

Ibid. 146

Samuel R. Gardiner, History of England from the Accession of James I to the Outbreak of the Civil War

(London: Longmans, Green and Co, 1883), 49. 147

Ibid. 148

さBarHara Napier,ざ in Normand and Roberts, Witchcraft in Early Modern Scotland, 252. 149

Ibid.

43

‘Try, by the mediciners’ oaths, if Barbara Napier be with bairn or not. Take no delaying answer. If ye find she be not, to the fire with her presently and cause bowel her publicly. Let Effie Makkaillen see the stoup two or three days and upon the sudden stay her in hope of confession if that service adverts. If not, despatch her the next oulke anis but not according to the rigour of the doom. The rest of the inferior witches, off at the nail with them.’150

On 7 June 1591, Barbara Napier’s twelve assizers were summoned to the tollbooth,

where they requested representation by John Russell, one of Barbara Napier’s prolocutors.151

‘Under pressure from James’ they rescinded their request and submitted themselves wholly to

the king’s will, a decision which ultimately saved them from severe punishment.152 The assize

of error is of especial significance to the 1590-1 witch-hunts, as by attending the trial in person,

James had gone against existing legal precedent.153 James’ presence provides a clear example of

the growth of his royal authority and power during the late sixteenth century.

The records of the trial of the assizers for wilful error clearly states that Napier’s jurors

‘did manifestly and wilfully err contrar the laws and practice of the realm.’154 James’ presence

in the court room is also described, ‘And they being required by the justice, his Majesty being

sitting in judgement, whether they would abide the trail of law, and of an assize for the said

crimes,’ as is the assizers acquiescence to his will, ‘they refused to abide the trial of an assize

therefore, but came simpliciter in his Highness’ will for the ignorant error committed by them in

acquitting of the said Barbara of the crimes.’155

The assize of error concluded with a magnanimous display of the king’s benevolence,

and declaration of his ‘understanding it was not wilful error they committed in acquitting in

150

Letters of King James VI & I, ed. G.P.V. Akrigg (Berkeley: University of California Press, Ltd., 1984), 112, 115. 151


Ibid. 153

Levack, Witch-Hunting, 38. 154

さThe Trial of BarHara Napierげs Assizers for Wilful Error,ざ in Normand and Roberts, Witchcraft in Early

Modern Scotland, 259. 155

Ibid.

44

manner foresaid.’156 James then reaffirmed his superior ability to discern the truth, and forgave

the assizers for their ignorance by stating that, ‘The wise men of the assisse I will not prejudge,

neither did I ever thinke worse of them, that they were ignorant.’157 Barbara Napier’s assizers

were acquitted of wilful error on 7 June 1591.

The dramatic speech which was delivered to the assizers by James that day in the

tollbooth highlighted his role in the trials, including his ‘unusual presence there,’ which was

described in the Calendar of State Papers Relating to Scotland as a ‘defect in the laws.’158 In his

speech, James referred to the ‘rise of witchcraft, the enormity of the crime, its punishment

according to Scripture,’ and refuted skepticism by stressing the ‘ignorance of thinking such

things were mere fantasies.’159 By stating that, ‘As for them who thinke these witchcrafts to be

but fantacyes, I remmyt them to be catechized and instructed in these most evident poyntes,’

James emphasized the validity of the threat of witchcraft, and as such, the necessity of his own

involvement in the trials.160 His desire to affirm his fearlessness in facing danger, his ability to

defeat the witches, and the essentiality of his divine presence in order to combat the forces of evil

is evident in the following excerpt:

‘Therefore I shew unto you that I tooke this labour upon my selfe: first, because I see no justice in inferior judges, they being carried away eyther with feade or favour; secondly, because I see the pride of those witches and their freendes, which cannot be prevented but by myne owne presence.’161

The speech delivered to Napier’s assizers ultimately reinforced the prevalence of

witchcraft, James’ authoritative, and therefore necessary role in the proceedings, and the ‘cause

156

Ibid. 157

King James VI & I, "Speech to the Jury at the Witchcraft Trial, Αth Juﾐe ヱヵΓヱ,ざ in Minor Prose Works of King

James VI and I, ed. James Craigie (Edinburgh: Scottish Text Society, 1982), 191. 158

Calendar of the State Papers Relating to Scotland, 1589-1603, Vol II. (London: Longman, Brown, Green,

Longman & Roberts, 1858), 592. 159

Ibid. 160

King James VI & I, "Speech to the Jury,ざ 190-191. 161

Ibid.

45

of his own interference in the matter.’162 It also underlined the position of the king as a

protector of his realm against evil, stressing that he had been ‘occupied these three quarters of

this yeere for the siftyng out of them that are guilty herein.’163

The trial of Euphame MacCalzean commenced on 9 June 1591, and is of particular

relevance to the politicization of witchcraft, due to the deliberate construction of her trial as a

mirror to the larger witchcraft conspiracy against the king. As theorized by Normand and

Roberts, MacCalzean’s trial reflects the intention of her examiners, which was to ostensibly use

the charges against her to ‘represent in miniature those that the entire group of witches is

supposed to have committed against the king.’164 This intent is evident in MacCalzean’s dittay,

in which ‘treason and witchcraft are most successfully combined’ in a cleverly constructed

analogy which parallels the charge of MacCalzean’s attempt to murder her husband with the plan

to destroy the king.165

MacCalzean’s dittay begins with the treasonable charge of using witchcraft with the

intent to destroy ‘our sovereign lord’s person,’ then continues by listing a plethora of witchcraft

crimes, including plotting against her husband, Patrick Moscrop, and of ‘seeking to destroy him

by witchcraft.’166 The construction of MacCalzean’s trial, and the parallels drawn between her

attempted crimes against both husband and the king, are discernible in items five and six of her

dittay. These items, which describe how Moscrop did ‘expone himself to the seas,’ and construe

MacCalzean’s attempts to kill him after he returned from his voyage, draw a clear correlation

162

Calendar of the State Papers, II, 592. 163

King James VI & I, "Speech to the Jury,ざ 190-191. 164


Ibid, 218. 166

さThe Trial of Euphame MacCalzean, 9-15 Juﾐe ヱヵΓヱ,ざ in Normand and Roberts, Witchcraft in Early Modern

Scotland, 261.

46

between her alleged crimes and those of the collective group witches.167 This comparison gives

credence to the North Berwick witch hunts overall, and further supports the idea that as each

individual witch possessed significant power, the threat of the mass conspiracy against James

was indeed formidable. MacCalzean was sentenced to death on 15 June 1591, and was burned

alive on castle hill ten days later, ironically the same day that the Earl of Bothwell was declared a

traitor by royal proclamation.168

The North Berwick witch panics which began at the end of 1590 would play out with

horrific consequences over the course of the following year, involving not only members of both

the lower and upper classes, but the king himself. The surviving trial records afford a glimpse

into a complex political situation in which witchcraft became a pretext for the king to move

against the Earl of Bothwell, while simultaneously asserting his royal authority and giving

greater legitimacy to his throne. James’ personal involvement and manipulation of the events is

reflected in the depositions and dittays, in which the words of the accused reflect his struggle

with the Kirk, his personal belief in divine right, and his need to affirm his authority. The trial of

Barbara Napier’s assizers stands out as an obvious example of James’ royal absolutism, in which

his skilled manipulations of the witch trials can most clearly be discerned.

The 1590-1 witch hunt became a powerful tool to serve James’ own political ends, but

also inadvertently contributed to the writing of his treatise, Daemonologie, which was published

six years later. The witchcraft practices described in the treatise often reflect with striking

similarity those found within the pre-trial depositions and dittays, and the emphasis placed upon

the reality and punishment of witches both validates and justifies the king’s involvement in the

North Berwick Trials.

167

Ibid, 263. 168


47

VI. DAEMONOLOGIE

‘The fearful abounding at this time in this country of these detestable slaves of the devil, the witches or enchanters, has moved me (beloved reader) to dispatch on post this following treatise of mine.’169 ‘I pray to God to purge this country of these devilish practices, for they were never so rife in these parts as they are now.’170

The king’s involvement in the 1590-1 North Berwick witch trials gave rise to his treatise,

Daemonologie, which was written ‘hard on the heels of the examination of the witches.’171

However, it was not published until the end of 1597, when it most likely appeared in response to

negativity expressed by the public over yet another witch panic which had occurred earlier that

year.172 The text of Daemonologie not only echoes James’ personal experiences in the

witchcraft trials, but also reflects the influence that predominant European witchcraft and

demonological thought had on the king as he was composing his own treatise. James’ need to

assert his authority during a period of political instability, his personal involvement in the witch

trials, and his views on the nature of kingship became inextricably interwoven during the 1590-1

trials. As a result, Daemonologie offers an alternative perspective on the witch trails themselves,

as well as affording a glimpse into the complex mind of its author, who remains the only early

modern European monarch to have composed such a work.

The construction of Daemonologie is that of a dialogue between master and pupil -

Epistemon and Philomathes – which reflects the literary form used by classical theologians such

169

King James VI, Demonology, in Witchcraft in Early Modern Scotland, 353. 170

Ibid, 424. 171


Ibid.

48

as Plato and Cicero.173 The quarto of Daemonologie comprises three books totalling eighty-one

pages, in which James relies heavily on biblical scripture to support his arguments, though the

views of contemporary demonologists also factor significantly in the text. The first book is a

discourse on magicians and magic, while the second expounds upon female witches and

witchcraft. The third is primarily concerned with pneumatology and the punishment of witches,

a theme commonly found within fifteenth- and sixteenth-century demonological treatises. The

theme of punishing witches reflects James’ need to justify the witch trials while simultaneously

supporting his ability to root out evil, due to the divine power bestowed upon him by God.

Frontispiece of Daemonologie, 1597.

173

Episteﾏoﾐ traﾐslates to けoﾐe ┘ho has the kﾐo┘ledge of aﾐ e┝pertげ aﾐd Philoﾏathes to けlo┗er of kﾐo┘ledgeげ (Greek).

49

James’s intention in writing Daemonologie was to illustrate that witchcraft, demonology ,

and other such ‘devilish arts’ did indeed exist, as well as to determine ‘what exact trial and

severe punishment’ they did merit.174 As declared by the king in the preface of his work, the

‘assaults of Satan’ were very real, and the ‘instruments thereof’ were to be punished by the most

severe means possible.175 During the early modern period, there was ‘an attempt to maintain

belief while fighting off scepticism’ among witchcraft theorists.176 One of James’ primary goals

in writing Daemonologie was to refute the scepticism of contemporary works, such as De

Praestigiis Daemonum (The Tricks of Demons), written by the demonologist Johann Weyer in

1563. Weyer criticized witch-hunting, claiming that witch-hunts were imprudent attempts to

punish innocent - and often crazy - elderly women, and that such hunts caused greater harm than

good in society.

Daemonologie was also written in response to the thoroughly sceptical Reginald Scot,

who in his 1584 book The Discoverie of Witchcraft, assiduously criticized the persecution of

accused witches. By attempting to discredit scepticism as it related to witchcraft, James aimed to

lend further support to the threat it posed to his person and realm. In this way, he asserted the

necessity of his involvement and use of torture in the examinations and trials, and stressed his

role as the earthly adversary of the Devil and witches, who despite their considerable unholy

power were nonetheless unable to destroy such a formidable king; a king who had been placed

upon his throne by God.

174

King James VI, Demonology, 354. 175

Ibid, ンヵン. Note: けiﾐstruﾏeﾐtsげ refers to the witches themselves. 176

Walter Stephens, Demon Lovers: Witchcraft, Sex, and the Crisis of Belief (Chicago: The University of Chicago

Press, 2002), 27.

50

Frontispiece of Malleus Maleficarum, 1669 edition.

The authors of demonological treatises were ‘theologians first and foremost’ whose

interests in witchcraft and demonology were ‘inseparable from their theological concerns.’177

Numerous works of witchcraft inquisitors, demonologists and political theorists can be counted

among the contemporary treatises which likely influenced the writing of Daemonologie.

Prominent among these is the Malleus Maleficarum (Hammer of the Witches), a fifteenth-

century witchcraft treatise and manual for the detection and punishment of witches, written by

the Dominican inquisitors Heinrich Kramer and Jacob Sprenger.

177

Stephens, Demon Lovers, 9.

51

With regards to the late sixteenth-century witch panics in Scotland, it is significant that

the Malleus supports the admission of evidence given by other witches:

‘Also, a sorcerer is allowed to give testimony against a sorcerer in the same way that a heretic is allowed to give testimony against a heretic, though in default of other proofs, and always against and never for. This is also the case with his wife, children and friends.’178

The admissibility of evidence by accused witches could very well have influenced James,

both during the North Berwick witch trials, and in his writing of Daemonologie, and offers an

explanation, along with the use of torture to force confessions, for the exceedingly high number

of witches that were accused during the late sixteenth-century witch-hunts. In Book III of

Daemonologie, James clearly supports the use of testimony of accused witches. By doing so, he

justifies the admission of such evidence as being necessary to the effective trial and punishment

of crimes of treason against the king:

‘Philomathes: And what may a number, then, of guilty persons’ confessions work against one that is accused? Epistemon: The assize must serve for interpreter of our law in that respect. But in my opinion, since in a matter of treason against the prince, bairns or wives or never so defamed persons may of our law serve for sufficient witnesses and proofs, I think surely that by a far greater reason such witnesses may be sufficient in matters of high treason against God; for who but witches can be proves [those who provide proof], and so witnesses, of the doings of witches?’179

The Malleus also supports the belief in, and elaborates on the Devil’s conspiracy to

destroy mankind, and as reflected in the third book of Daemonologie, sets out procedures so that

‘judges in both ecclesiastical and civil courts will always have at hand the method of conducting

178

Heinrich Kramer and James Sprenger, The Hammer of Witches: A Complete Translation of the Malleus

Maleficarum (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 511. 179

James VI, Demonology, 422-423.

52

trials, passing judgment and sentencing.’180 Daemonologie echoes the Malleus Maleficarum at

its conclusion, stating that ‘God will never allow the innocent to be accused of witchcraft,’ a

claim which justified the execution of accused witches, as well as James’ authorization of such

proceedings.181

There were numerous demonological works published much closer to James’ time, which

also likely influenced Daemonologie. Of these, the most significant is a treatise written by the

French political philosopher Jean Bodin in 1580. James refers to Bodin’s treatise, De

la Démonomanie des Sorciers (On the Demon-Mania of Witches) in the preface of

Daemonologie, stating that although he fails to mention all aspects of ‘secrets of these unlawful

arts,’ those who ‘likes to be curious in these things,’ should read Bodin’s Démonomanie.182

Jean Bodin

180

Kramer and Sprenger, Hammer of Witches, 500. 181

Edward J. Cowan, "Witch Persecution and Folk Belief in Lowland Scotland: The Devil's Decade," in

Witchcraft and Belief in Early Modern Scotland, ed. Julian Goodare, Lauren Martin, Joyce Miller (New

York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2008), 74. 182

James VI, Demonology, 355-356.

53

Bodin was an absolutist who claimed that a sovereign prince was accountable only to

God.183 His ideology, which arose due to the brutality of the French religious wars of 1562, held

that violence and chaos were destroying France, and that the problem could only be rectified by a

powerful and respected monarchy, in which the was monarch regarded as the absolute ruler of

the state. 184 This view would have strongly resonated with James, who during the late sixteenth

century, faced disrespect from his ministers and instability within his realm.

Frontispiece and title page of De la Démonomanie des Sorciers, 1693 German edition.

183

Julian H. Franklin, Jean Bodin and the Rise of Absolutist Theory, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

1973), 23. 184

Jean Bodin, On the Demon-Mania of Witches, ed. Jonathan L. Pearl (Toronto: Centre for Reformation and

Renaissance Studies, 1995), 10.

54

Bodin’s treatise, De la Démonomanie des Sorciers (On the Demon-Mania of Witches)

stresses the importance of princes to suppress demon worship and to harshly punish the crime of

witchcraft. Furthermore, his declaration that ‘It is not within the power of princes to pardon a

crime that the law of God punishes by death, such as the crimes of witchcraft,’ and that ‘princes

do a great offense to God to pardon such horrible wickednesses committed directly against is

majesty, since the smallest prince avenges his injuries with capital punishment,’ would have

been in perfect accordance with James’ own views.185

De la Démonomanie des Sorciers was written ‘to serve as a warning to all those who read

it, in order to make it clearly known that there are no crimes which are nearly so vile as this one,

or which deserve more serious penalties.’186 This is also true of Daemonologie, in which

numerous references to Bodin’s work are later reflected, in particular the fourth book, which

details the handling of witchcraft cases in court. Bodin clearly advocates severe punishment for

witches and states that they deserve death, which may have influenced the increased severity of

how witches were tried and punished at during the late sixteenth century in Scotland.187 It is

significant that Bodin advocated torture and forced confessions, arguing that ‘the judge must get

to the truth by every means that he can imagine,’ a view encouraged by James during the witch

trials. 188

Book III of Daemonologie also reflects Bodin’s views on the investigation of witches, in

particular the criticism of those commissioners who ‘have left unpunished the most detestable

and horrible wickedness of witches.’189 This is especially relevant when one considers James’

enraged reaction to the assizers of Barbara Napier upon her partial acquittal. Further influence

185

Bodin, Demon-Mania of Witches, 174. 186

Ibid, 37. 187

Ibid, 24. 188

Ibid, 191. 189

Ibid, 174.

55

of Bodin’s demonology is evident in Book I, Chapter VII of Daemonologie, in which James

criticizes the leniency of monarchs in punishing witches, stating that ‘Upon custom, we see that

diverse Christian princes and magistrates, severe punishers of witches, will not only oversee

magicians to live within their dominions, but even sometimes delight to see them prove some of

their practices.’190 Bodin held that defiance of an anointed monarch was treason, a crime

deserving of death, and that the laws imposed on a society by the monarch were to be obeyed

unquestioningly by all his subjects. This perfectly mirrored James’ own views, as the following

dialogue from Daemonologie illustrates:

‘Philomathes: Whether may the Prince then, or supreame Magistrate, spare or ouersee any that are guiltie of that craft, vpon som great respects knowen to him? Epistemon: But in the end to spare the life, and not to strike when God bids strike, and so seuerlie punish in so odious a fault & treason against God, it is not only vnlawful, but doubtlesse no lesse sinne in that Magistrate, nor it was in SAVLES sparing of AGAG. And so comparable to the sin of Witch-craft it selfe, as SAMVELL alleaged at that time.’191

This dialogue refers to the Book of Samuel, and King Saul’s defiance of God’s

commanded to destroy the Amelekites, a sinful people. Saul killed every man, woman and child,

but spared the King, Agag. The prophet Samuel cursed Saul for defying the will of God, stating

that ‘rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubburnnesse is as iniquitie and idolatrie: because

thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king.’192 This

particular excerpt highlights James’ cleverness in using scripture to justify the excesses of the

witch trials. Not only does he draw a parallel between himself and a biblical monarch, and that it

is a great sin to disobey God’s command to punish witches, but he alludes to the fact that if he

were to spare even one witch from execution, it would result in his removal from the throne.

190

King James VI, Demonology, 376-377. 191

King James VI, Daemonologie, in Minor Prose Works of King James VI and I, 54. 192

1 Samuel 15:23, King James Bible (1611).

56

Accordingly, as a monarch chosen by God, the only course of action for him to take with regards

to witches was to execute them without exception. As stated in Daemonologie, witches ‘ought to

be put to death according to the law of God.’193

If De la Démonomanie des Sorciers was the most influential of the Catholic treatises on

Daemonologie, then A Dialogue of Witches, in Foretime Named Lot-tellers and Now Commonly

Called Sorcerers, was its Protestant counterpart. Written in 1574 by the French Calvinist

minister and theologian Lambert Daneau, Dialogue ‘establishes some of the main themes of late

sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Protestant demonology.’194

Frontispiece of A Dialogue of Witches, 1575.

193

King James VI, Demonology, 421. 194

Brian P. Levack, The Witchcraft Sourcebook, (New York: Routledge, 2004), 71.

57

In the fifth chapter of the treatise, titled What punishment Sorcerers deſerue to haue

[deserve to have], Daneau refers to sorcerers as ‘falſe forſwearers [false forswearers] of Gods

power, traytours to the majeſtie [majesty] of God,’ a sentiment echoed sixteen years later by

James and his politicization of the North Berwick witch trials.195 As reflected later by James

when writing Daemonologie, Daneau declared that sorcerers and witches were ‘worthy of moſt

ſeuere puniſhment [most severe punishment]’ and emphatically stated that ‘by the Lawe of God,

a Sorcerer is condemned to dye.’196

Further influence upon James’ work is that of Henri Boguet, demonologist and judge in

the County of Burgundy, who was, in turn, influenced by Bodin. Boguet compiled An Examen of

Witches, a collection of trial proceedings and accusations of witchcraft in Burgundy during the

late sixteenth century. Many of the various discernible similarities between Bodin and Boguet’s

demonological works are reflected in Daemonologie, such as the criticism of magistrates ‘whose

duty it is to punish felons and criminals; for if we had no more than the direct command of God

to put them to death as being His bitterest enemies, why should we endure them any longer, and

thus disobey the Majesty of the Most High?’197 Much like James’ Daemonologie, Examen was

also written as a response to sceptics; this is apparent in Boguet’s claims that, ‘For my part I

suspect that the truth is that such people really believe in their hearts, but will not admit

it.’198

James’ views regarding the punishment of witches, found in the third book of

Daemonologie, mirror those within Examen, such as Boguet’s statements that ‘witches never

leave the service of Satan for any punishment that is given them, except that of death,’ and ‘I

195

Lambert Daneau, A Dialogue of Witches: in Foretime Named Lot-tellers and Now Commonly Called

Sorcerers (London: R. Watkins,1575), sig. K2r. 196

Ibid. 197

Henri Boguet, An Examen of Witches, ed. Montague Summers (London: John Rodker, 1929), xxxiv. 198

Ibid, xxxix.

58

shall always maintain that, on the least pretext, they should be put to death.’199 As later reflected

by James in Daemonologie, Boguet also supported the validity of testimony given by accused

witches, claiming that ‘witches who have confessed have as a rule never laid information against

any who were not of their brotherhood, or at least were not deeply suspected.’200

The use of torture to force confessions promoted by James during the North Berwick

witch trials is reflected in Book III of Daemonologie, and closely follows the views held by

Bodin and Boguet, such as in the chapter of Examen titled ‘The Manner of Procedure of a Judge

in a Case of Witchcraft,’ in which torture is advocated and judges are encouraged to use ‘every

lawful means to induce the witch to confess the truth.’201

While James’ belief in divine right and the need to assert his royal authority can be

ascertained within Daemonologie in the numerous parallels between the discourse and the North

Berwick trial records, the need to assert his royal authority is most evident in the text’s emphasis

on the punishment of witches, which was very much a concern in 1597, as it had been in 1590-1.

In addition to the on-going discord between Kirk and King, there was famine in Scotland, as well

as an outbreak of the plague in 1597.202 Confronted by this upheaval and instability, the king

and his political factions attempted, at last, to achieve a modicum of peace and harmony within

the realm. Witch-hunting became something on which they could all unite.

On 2 February 1597, during the first stages of the witch-hunt of that year, the magistrates

of Aberdeen received a commission to try five accused witches. The majority of commissions of

justiciary were given to try specific individuals, but there also existed general commissions

which could be used to try a large number of cases within one area. These general commissions

199

Ibid, 170-171. 200

Henri Boguet, An Examen of Witches (Mineola: Dover Publications, Inc., 2009), 212. 201

Ibid, 217. 202

Goodare, "Scottish Witchcraft Panic," 52-53.

59

‘could facilitate mass prosecutions’ and in Aberdeen, once one witch started to name further

suspects, a mass panic rapidly developed.203

The prominence of this new witch-hunt, a mere six years after the North Berwick trials, is

highlighted in a letter to William Cecil, Lord Burghley, from the English ambassador Robert

Bowes.204 In the letter dated 15 August 1597, Bowes stated that the ‘The King is much pestered

with witches, who swarm in thousands; their confession of practices against the life of the King

and the young Prince.’205 An anonymous letter of advice the following month referred to the

perpetuation of the witch trials, and referred to James as ‘bent upon the examination of the

sorcerers.’206 Echoing the North Berwick trials in 1590-1, the 1597 witch trials affirmed that the

king, and by extension, his heir, were once again in great danger, assuring that the ‘political

significance of witchcraft was thus sustained.’207

Daemonologie was published in 1597, near the end of the witch panic, and it served to

justify the execution of hundreds of accused witches and to remind James’ subjects of the

immediate dangers of witchcraft. The treatise asserted James’ role as a divinely appointed king,

who was – once again - bravely facing and rooting out the powers of evil, while effectively

conveying the king’s ‘concern for the safety of the realm.’208

Despite James’s lofty aims regarding Daemonologie, upon its publication, ‘public praise

for the royal author was conspicuous by its absence.’209 The excesses of witch hunts of 1597 had

sparked a negative public outcry, and James’s lack of perception regarding his subject’s attitude 203

Goodare, "Witch-Hunting and the Scottish State," 127. 204

William Cecil served as Lord High Treasurer for Queen Elizabeth I of England, and was her chief advisor

from her accession in 1558 until his death in 1598. Robert Bowes was the ambassador of Queen Elizabeth

in the court of Scotland during the reign of James VI. 205

Calendar of the State Papers, II, 740. Note: Prince Henry Frederick, eldest son of James and Anne, was

three years old at the time of the 1597 witch panic. 206

Ibid, 741. 207


Ibid, 69. 209

Goodare, "Scottish Witchcraft Panic," 70.

60

was due, in no small part, to the fact that he lacked ‘that intuitive perception of the popular

feeling.’210 The most significant accusation during the 1597 witch panics involved one

Margaret Aitken, who was ultimately exposed as a fraud.211 Her exposure brought the 1597

witch panic, and as such, the necessity for justification of the excesses of the trials, abruptly to an

end. It would be thirty years before another witch panic would hold Scotland in its grip.

210

Gardiner, History of England, 49. 211

Goodare, "Scottish Witchcraft Panic," 60.

61

VII. CONCLUSION

The late sixteenth century saw a dramatic rise of witch-hunts in Scotland, as accusations

of witchcraft rapidly spiralled into mass panics. James VI became personally involved in the

examinations and trials, which revolved around an alleged conspiracy of witches in league with

the Devil attempting to destroy the king. The witch-hunts occurred during a time of social,

religious and political turmoil, when James’ royal authority was decidedly unstable. James

politicized witchcraft by perpetuating the view that the Devil was determined to bring chaos to

his realm, and by manipulating the witch trials in order to eliminate the threat of the Earl of

Bothwell, assert his divine right to rule, and accord his throne with greater legitimacy. The cost

of James’ politically motivated witchcraft was high; between 1590 and 1597 close to three

hundred accused witches were strangled and burned. Many of the accused were subjected to

torture, all in the name of justice.

As horrific as the witch-hunts which took place in Scotland may seem when viewed from

a modern perspective, the events which transpired during the last decade of the sixteenth century

were not singular. The hunting of witches did not end four hundred years ago; politically

motivated witch-hunts still exist today. Throughout history, times of social crisis and turmoil

have given rise to ‘othering,’ and the need to assign blame to someone or something for the

cataclysm. One has only to look at America during the twentieth and twenty-first centuries to

realize that the politicization of witch-hunts and modern incarnations of ‘witchcraft’ have not

been confined to the distant past.

The mid-twentieth century saw hundreds of alleged communists tried and imprisoned in

America, as part of Senator McCarthy’s fanatical crusade against ‘subversives’. These modern-

day witch-hunts were manufactured by McCarthy for political gain, and they took advantage of

62

the American people’s fear of communism, mirroring King James’ own use of witch-hunts to

strengthen his reign, and his exploitation of the existing fear of witchcraft in Scotland.

Since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, modern-day witch-hunts and media propaganda not

unlike News from Scotland have generated fear and hatred towards Muslims, and perpetuated the

illusion that the stability of America is under attack by Islam, much as the established order of

James’ realm was purported to be threatened by the Devil.

Although the politically motivated witch-hunts which have occurred in contemporary

America are not predicated on the fear that witches possessing supernatural powers exist, the

arrests, detainment, and trials of alleged terrorists could be argued to serve the same purpose as

those of supposed witches in Scotland’s dark past.

The modern ‘War on Terror’ and Islamophobia, both religious-like crusades against the

‘other,’ serve to assert the legitimacy of the American legal system and the power and security of

the State. While the witch-hunts of today originate and are perpetuated by the Department of

Justice and not an anointed king, they take place in the federal courts and serve to further the

political aims of the ruling authority; ultimately, they differ very little from their predecessors in

Scotland four hundred years ago.

63

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources A Compendium of the Laws of the Church of Scotland, Volume 1. Edinburgh: Edinburgh

Printing and Publishing Company, 1837.

A Source-Book of Scottish Witchcraft. Edited by Christina Larner, Christopher Hyde Lee, Hugh V. McLachlan. Glasgow: Department of Sociology, University of Glasgow, 1977.

Acts of the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland. Edinburgh: John Greig, 1843.

Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Vol III. 1567-1592. Edited by T. Thomson. London: Printed by Command of His Majesty King George the Third, 1814.

Bodin, Jean. De la Démonomanie de Sorciers. Translations and Reprints from the Original Sources of European History, Vol III, The Witch Persecutions. Edited by George L. Burr. Pennsylvania: The Department of History of the University of Pennsylvania, 1897.

Bodin, Jean. Les Six Livres de la République. Aalen, Germany: Scientia Verlag, 1961.

Bodin, Jean. On the Demon-Mania of Witches. Edited by Jonathan L. Pearl. Toronto: Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies, 1995.

Boguet, Henri. An Examen of Witches (Discours Des Sorciers). London: John Rodker, 1929.

Boguet, Henri. An Examen of Witches. Mineola: Dover Publications, Inc., 2009.

Calendar of the State Papers Relating to Scotland, 1589-1603, Vol II. London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longman & Roberts, 1858.

Criminal Trials in Scotland 1488-1596. Edited by Robert Pitcairn. Edinburgh: William Tate, 1833. “Confessions and Depositions of Geillis Duncan, Janet Stratton and Donald Robson, 29

January 1591,” in Witchcraft in Early Modern Scotland: James VI's Demonology and the North Berwick Witches. Edited by Lawrence Normand and Gareth Roberts. Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 2000, 163-167.

Danaeus, Lambertus. A Dialogue of Witches, in Foretime Named Lot-tellers and Now

Commonly Called Sorcerers. London: R. Watkins, 1575, sig. K1v-K3r.

64

“Depositions of Bessie Thomson, Janet Stratton and Donald Robson, and Confrontation of Barbara Napier and Euphame MacCalzean by the Depositions of Robson, Stratton and Ritchie Graham,” in Witchcraft in Early Modern Scotland: James VI's Demonology and the North Berwick Witches, 158-162.

“Deposition of Geillis Duncan, 5 December 1590 and 15 January 1591,” in Witchcraft in

Early Modern Scotland: James VI's Demonology and the North Berwick Witches, 150-153.

“Deposition of Janet Kennedy, June 1591,” in Witchcraft in Early Modern Scotland: James

VI's Demonology and the North Berwick Witches, 183-186. “Deposition of Janet Stratton, 4 May 1591,” in Witchcraft in Early Modern Scotland: James

VI's Demonology and the North Berwick Witches, 170-173. “Examinations and Confessions of Geillis Duncan and Agnes Sampson, December 1590,” in

Witchcraft in Early Modern Scotland: James VI's Demonology and the North Berwick Witches, 135-140.

“Examinations and Confessions of Agnes Sampson, 4-5 December 1590,” in Witchcraft in

Early Modern Scotland: James VI's Demonology and the North Berwick Witches, 141-149.

“Examinations of Geillis Duncan, Donald Robson and Bessie Thomson, 5 May 1591,” in

Witchcraft in Early Modern Scotland: James VI's Demonology and the North Berwick Witches, 174-176.

In Defence of Earl Bothwell: To the Nobility (1591). The Warrender Papers, Vol II . Edited by Annie I. Cameron. Ediburgh: University Press, 1932.

The Library of James VI, 1573-1583, From a Manuscript in the Hand of Peter Young, His Tutor. Edited by George F. Warner. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1893.

“The Trial of Agnes Sampson, 27 January 1591,” in Witchcraft in Early Modern Scotland:

James VI's Demonology and the North Berwick Witches, 231-246. “The Trial of Barbara Napier, 8-10 May 1591,” in Witchcraft in Early Modern Scotland:

James VI's Demonology and the North Berwick Witches, 247-252.

“The Trial of Barbara Napier’s Assizers for Wilful Error, 7 June 1591,” in Witchcraft in Early Modern Scotland: James VI's Demonology and the North Berwick Witches, 253-260.

“The Trial of the Earl of Bothwell, 10 August 1593,” in Witchcraft in Early Modern Scotland: James VI's Demonology and the North Berwick Witches, 281-287.

65

“The Trial of Euphame MacCalzean, 9-15 June 1591,” in Witchcraft in Early Modern Scotland: James VI's Demonology and the North Berwick Witches, 261-274.

“The Trial of John Fian, 26 December 1590,” in Witchcraft in Early Modern Scotland: James VI's Demonology and the North Berwick Witches, 224-230.

James I. A Speach to the Lords and Commons of the Parliament at White-Hall, on Wednesday the 21 of March. Anno1609, in The Political Works of James I. Edited by Charles Howard McIlwain. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1918.

James VI. Demonology, in Witchcraft in Early Modern Scotland: James VI's Demonology

and the North Berwick Witches, 353-425, James VI. Daemonologie, in Minor Prose Works of King James VI and I. Edited by James

Craigie. Edinburgh: Scottish Text Society, 1982. James VI. Letters of King James VI & I. Edited by G.P.V. Akrigg. Berkeley: University of

California Press, Ltd., 1984.

James VI. Speech to the Jury at the Witchcraft Trial, 7 June 1591, in Minor Prose Works of King James VI and I. Edited by James Craigie. Edinburgh: Scottish Text Society, 1982.

Kramer, Heinrich, and James Sprenger. The Hammer of Witches: A Complete Translation of the Malleus Maleficarum. Edited by Christopher Mackay. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. London: Grant Richards, 1903.

Marioribancks, George. Analls of Scotland From the Yeir 1514 to the Yeir 1591. Edinburgh: Andrew Balfour, 1814.

Melville, James. The Diary of Mr. James Melville, 1556-1601. Edinburgh: Ballantyne, 1820.

Newes from Scotland: Declaring the Damnable Life of Dr Fian. London: W. Bulmer & Co., 1816.

Pearl, Jonathan L., ed. Jean Bodin, On the Demon-Mania of Witches. Toronto: Centre for

Reformation and Renaissance Studies, 1995.

Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Vol IV A.D. 1585-1592. Edited by David Masson. Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1881.

The Holy Bible, William Tyndale Translation (1536). Wesley Center for Applied Theology, 2011.www.wesley.nnu.edu

66

The Holy Bible, King James Version. New York: Oxford Edition: 1611; King James Bible Online, 2008. www.kingjamesbibleonline.org

Secondary Sources Anderson, Joseph. “The Wicked Clan Gregor,” in The Scottish Review. XVI (1890).

Calderwood, David. The History of the Kirk of Scotland. Edited by Thomas Thomson. Edinburgh: Wodrow Society, 1842.

Chambers, Robert. Domestic Annals of Scotland from the Reformation to the Revolution, Vol I. Edinburgh: W. and R. Chambers, 1858.

Cowan, Edward J. “Witch Persecution and Folk Belief in Lowland Scotland: The Devil's Decade,” in Witchcraft and Belief in Early Modern Scotland. Edited by Julian Goodare, Lauren Martin and Joyce Miller. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2008.

Cramsie, John. “The Philosophy of Imperial Kingship and the Interpretation of James VI and I,” in James VI and I: Ideas, Authority and Government. Edited by Ralph Houlbrooke. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2006, 43-60.

Dictionary of the Scots Language (DSL), 2004. www.dsl.ac.uk.

Franklin, Julian H. Jean Bodin and the Rise of Absolutist Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973.

Gardiner, Samuel R. History of England from the Accession of James I to the Outbreak of the Civil War. London: Longmans, Green and Co, 1883.

Goodare, Julian. “Scottish Witchcraft in its European Context,” in Witchcraft and Belief in Early Modern Scotland. Edited by Julian Goodare, Lauren Martin, Joyce Miller. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2008.

Goodare, Julian. “The Scottish Witchcraft Act,” in Church History, 74. no. 1 (2005): 39-67.

Goodare, Julian, ed. The Scottish Witch-Hunt in Context. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002.

Goodare, Julian. “The Scottish Witchcraft Panic of 1597,” in The Scottish Witch-Hunt in Context. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002, 51-72.

67

Goodare, Julian, ed. “Witch-Hunting and the Scottish State,” in The Scottish Witch-Hunt in Context. Edited by Julian Goodare. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002, 122-145.

Larner, Christina. Enemies of God: The Witch-Hunt in Scotland. London: Chatto & Windus, 1981.

Lee, Maurice. John Maitland of Thirlestane and the Foundation of the Stewart Despotism in Scotland. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1959.

Levack, Brian P., ed. The Witchcraft Sourcebook. New York: Routledge, 2004, 71-76.

Levack, Brian P. Witch-Hunting in Scotland: Law, Politics and Religion. London: Routledge, 2008.

Linton, E. Lynn, ed. “The Witches of Scotland,” in Witch Stories. London: Chatto and Windus, 1883.

MacDonald, A.R. The Jacobean Kirk 1567-1625: Sovereignty, Polity and Liturgy. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Ltd., 1998.

MacDonald, A.R. "The Subscription Crisis and Church-State Relations, 1584-1586." in Records of the Scottish Church History Society. 25 (1994): 222-255.

MacDonald, Stuart. “The Devil in Fife Witchcraft Cases,” in The Scottish Witch-Hunt in Context. Edited by Julian Goodare. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002, 33-50.

McCrie, Thomas. The Life of Andrew Melville, the Scottish Reformer. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1840.

Martin, Lauren. “Witchcraft, Quarrels and Women's Work,” in The Scottish Witch-Hunt in Context. Edited by Julian Goodare. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002, 73-89.

Maxwell-Stuart, P.G. “The Fear of the King is Death: James VI and the Witches of East Lothian,” in New Perspectives on Witchcraft, Magic and Demonology: Witchcraft in the British Isles and New England. Edited by Brian Levack. New York: Routledge. Vol.4 (2001): 367-381.

Neville Figgis, John. The Divine Right of Kings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1922.

New Testament Greek Lexicon, 1999. www.biblestudytools.com.

68

Normand, Lawrence and Gareth Roberts, eds. Witchcraft in Early Modern Scotland: James VI's Demonology and the North Berwick Witches. Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 2000.

Sachse, William L. English History in the Making, Vol 1. Lexington: Blaisedell Publishing Co, 1967.

Scott, Sir Walter. History of Scotland in Two Volumes, Vol II. Paris: A. and W. Galignani, 1830.

Stephens, Walter. Demon Lovers: Witchcraft, Sex, and the Crisis of Belief. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2002.

Taylor, James. The Pictorial History of Scotland, from the Roman Invasion to the Close of the Jacobite Rebellion, A.D. 79-1746. London: James S. Virtue, 1859.

Wormald, Jenny. James VI and I: Two Kings or One? in History: The Journal of the Historical Association. 68. no. 223 (1983).

Yeoman, Louise. “Hunting the Rich Witch in Scotland: High-Status Witchcraft Suspects and their Persecutors, 1590-1650,” in The Scottish Witch-Hunt in Context. Edited by Julian Goodare. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 2002, 106-121.

daemonology and divine right

Documents

james involvement

james treatise

james reaction

department of history

witch trials

history honours thesis

writing of daemonologie

personal involvement